The Icelandic wikipedia currently has no interwiki links on its century and decade articles, this is because Icelandic uses a system for decades and centuries which probably not alot (if any) languages use, at least not the ones i've surveyed, our decades and centuries are "off" by one year from "conventional" systems, we therefore cannot link to them since the two articles would not describe the same period.
A decade in Icelandic starts at x where x is a number ending in one and ends nine years later, so for example the period 1991–2000 is the "tenth decade" of the twentieth century. This is unlike English where a decade would be the period from 1990 to 1999 and be called the "1990s" or "nineties" for short.
Similarly, the "twentieth century" begins in 1901 and ends in 2000, unlike the English twentieth century which begins in 1900 and ends in 1999.
This system is at least not used in Danish, Norwegian, Faroese, Swedish, German, English, Spanish, french, Italian, Dutch, polish.
So, if any of you know another language which uses the same info reply to this email, and we can then link to it.
On Mon, 22 Nov, Ævar Arnfjörð wrote:
[...] our decades and centuries are "off" by one year from "conventional" systems, we therefore cannot link to them since the two articles would not describe the same period.
Far be it from me to comment on a policy of the Icelandic Wikipedia, but wouldn't it make more sense just to link to the nearly-equivalent articles *anyway*, especially for the Centuries? I mean, if the article at the [[en:...]] link for [[is:20. öldin]] contains information about 1900, and none about 2000, but has the other 99 years in common, is that not better than no link at all?
Like I say, apologies if this is something that has been discussed to death on the Icelandic wiki, but as a general principle, I think we are always going to have imperfect matches like this in the 'translation' system - articles which contain stubs for multiple topics, or just differences in what is deemed part of the "same topic". Indeed, the very nature of translation will lead to these: apparently, if I understood correctly, the English "penguin" has two translations in French, so an article in English titled "penguin" will never have a French link that is 100% equivalent. By leaving out such links completely, we lose the integration that the interwiki links are there to provide.
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 19:33, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
A decade in Icelandic starts at x where x is a number ending in one and ends nine years later, so for example the period 1991–2000 is the "tenth decade" of the twentieth century. This is unlike English where a decade would be the period from 1990 to 1999 and be called the "1990s" or "nineties" for short.
This is indeed true.
Similarly, the "twentieth century" begins in 1901 and ends in 2000, unlike the English twentieth century which begins in 1900 and ends in 1999.
However, this is not true. Traditionally "twentieth century" means 1901-2000 in English.
So, if any of you know another language which uses the same info reply to this email, and we can then link to it.
On Mon, 22nd November 2004, at 19:34, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com wrote:
[Snip]
Similarly, the "twentieth century" begins in 1901 and ends in 2000, unlike the English twentieth century which begins in 1900 and ends in 1999.
Umm. Actually, this is oft a point of confusion; although decades do, indeed start in xyz0 and continued until xyz9, centuries, millenia, and longer periods of time start from xy01 and continue to x(y+1)00. Hence the beginning of this millennium was on the 1st of January 200*1*, although the first decade primarily within said millennium had started the year beforehand, and the end thereof is to be the 31st of December 3000, not 2999.
[Snip]
Yours, confusingly,
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:38:23 -0000, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
On Mon, 22nd November 2004, at 19:34, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com wrote:
[Snip]
Similarly, the "twentieth century" begins in 1901 and ends in 2000, unlike the English twentieth century which begins in 1900 and ends in 1999.
Umm. Actually, this is oft a point of confusion; although decades do, indeed start in xyz0 and continued until xyz9, centuries, millenia, and longer periods of time start from xy01 and continue to x(y+1)00. Hence the beginning of this millennium was on the 1st of January 200*1*, although the first decade primarily within said millennium had started the year beforehand, and the end thereof is to be the 31st of December 3000, not 2999.
[Snip]
Yours, confusingly,
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Yep, the 1st of January, 2001 was the beginning of the 21st century! Hence the amusement of the better educated at the big celebrations on 31st December 1999! Not to mention the fact that it's a tad odd anyway even to mark the true change of millenium. (A rather arbitrary date, especially considering the re-jigging of our oft-times dubious Western calendar system!)
However, are the English Wikipedia articles currently set up according to the correct system, or the incorrect one?
Zoney
Zoney wrote:
Yep, the 1st of January, 2001 was the beginning of the 21st century! Hence the amusement of the better educated at the big celebrations on 31st December 1999! Not to mention the fact that it's a tad odd anyway even to mark the true change of millenium. (A rather arbitrary date, especially considering the re-jigging of our oft-times dubious Western calendar system!)
Of course the millenium started in January 2001. However, even knowing it, one could very well celebrate it. Because what truely excited people was not being in the third millenium, but that *four* digits changed in one moment. This is still true and always will be.
However, are the English Wikipedia articles currently set up according to the correct system, or the incorrect one?
Correct.
Gerrit.
--- Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Yep, the 1st of January, 2001 was the beginning of the 21st century! Hence the amusement of the better educated at the big celebrations on 31st December 1999! Not to mention the fact that it's a tad odd anyway even to mark the true change of millenium. (A rather arbitrary date, especially considering the re-jigging of our oft-times dubious Western calendar system!)
However, are the English Wikipedia articles currently set up according to the correct system, or the incorrect one?
What is this "correct" and "incorrect"? Either system is an arbitrary division of time, and it only becomes important which you prefer when you get to year 0 (because it doesn't exist). In the real world, the vast majority of people these days celebrate the change of a decade/century/millennium when the last digit changes to a zero, and so Wikipedia should certainly mention that to be the case. NPOV!
However, it probably does make sense to use the "traditional" rather than the "popular" definitions for decades etc., as that's the way they would have been most often referred to historically. There's certainly no problem linking to the Icelandic articles either, even if they would be a year out.
-- a clearly very poorly "educated" sjorford
___________________________________________________________ Win a castle for NYE with your mates and Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Yes, we should document popular math errors too, and popular misconceptions about how gravity works! ;) Mark
--- Stuart Orford sjorford@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Yep, the 1st of January, 2001 was the beginning of the 21st century! Hence the amusement of the better educated at the big celebrations on 31st December 1999! Not to mention the fact that it's a tad odd anyway even to mark the true change of millenium. (A
rather
arbitrary date, especially considering the re-jigging of our oft-times dubious Western calendar system!)
However, are the English Wikipedia articles currently set up according to the correct system, or the incorrect one?
What is this "correct" and "incorrect"? Either system is an arbitrary division of time, and it only becomes important which you prefer when you get to year 0 (because it doesn't exist). In the real world, the vast majority of people these days celebrate the change of a decade/century/millennium when the last digit changes to a zero, and so Wikipedia should certainly mention that to be the case. NPOV!
However, it probably does make sense to use the "traditional" rather than the "popular" definitions for decades etc., as that's the way they would have been most often referred to historically. There's certainly no problem linking to the Icelandic articles either, even if they would be a year out.
-- a clearly very poorly "educated" sjorford
___________________________________________________________
Win a castle for NYE with your mates and Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
--- Stuart Orford sjorford@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
What is this "correct" and "incorrect"? Either system is an arbitrary division of time, and it only becomes important which you prefer when you get to year 0 (because it doesn't exist). In the real world, the vast majority of people these days celebrate the change of a decade/century/millennium when the
last
digit changes to a zero, and so Wikipedia should certainly mention that to be the case. NPOV!
However, it probably does make sense to use the "traditional" rather than the "popular"
definitions
for decades etc., as that's the way they would
have
been most often referred to historically. There's certainly no problem linking to the Icelandic articles either, even if they would be a year out.
--- Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, we should document popular math errors too, and popular misconceptions about how gravity works! ;) Mark
Yes, we should.
-- Stuart
___________________________________________________________ Moving house? Beach bar in Thailand? New Wardrobe? Win £10k with Yahoo! Mail to make your dream a reality. Get Yahoo! Mail www.yahoo.co.uk/10k
Mark Richards wrote:
Yes, we should document popular math errors too, and popular misconceptions about how gravity works! ;)
Except that these aren't errors. Dividing time in such ways is completely arbitrary either way you do it. "The 20th century" is 1901-2000, and an arbitrary span of 100 years. "The 1900s" is 1900-1999, and an arbitrary span of 100 years. Neither is particularly "correct". The only thing I could possibly see as incorrect is if you were to refer to 1900-1999 as "the 20th century" or to 1901-2000 as "the 1900s".
-Mark
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:51:49 -0500, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
Yes, we should document popular math errors too, and popular misconceptions about how gravity works! ;)
Except that these aren't errors. Dividing time in such ways is completely arbitrary either way you do it. "The 20th century" is 1901-2000, and an arbitrary span of 100 years. "The 1900s" is 1900-1999, and an arbitrary span of 100 years. Neither is particularly "correct". The only thing I could possibly see as incorrect is if you were to refer to 1900-1999 as "the 20th century" or to 1901-2000 as "the 1900s".
-Mark
Do people not also (confusingly) use "the 1900s" to refer to 1900-1909?
Zoney
Zoney wrote:
Do people not also (confusingly) use "the 1900s" to refer to 1900-1909?
That's definitely the case, so I'd support a style (either policy, or informal policy) if using "the [[20th century]]" instead of "the [[1900s]]" for centuries, and [[1900s]] for the decade (although this latter usage is moderately confusing). It's not an issue that has much in the way of political or social ramifications, so NPOV is only really a minor point...
-Mark
James D. Forrester wrote:
On Mon, 22nd November 2004, at 19:34, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com wrote:
Similarly, the "twentieth century" begins in 1901 and ends in 2000, unlike the English twentieth century which begins in 1900 and ends in 1999.
Umm. Actually, this is oft a point of confusion; although decades do, indeed start in xyz0 and continued until xyz9, centuries, millenia, and longer periods of time start from xy01 and continue to x(y+1)00. Hence the beginning of this millennium was on the 1st of January 200*1*, although the first decade primarily within said millennium had started the year beforehand, and the end thereof is to be the 31st of December 3000, not 2999.
To make it more confusing: in the Dutch meaning of the word, the first decade of this millenium lasted from January 1, 2001 to January 10, 2001 (inclusive) :-)
nearly-all-Dutch-people-do-it-wrong-ly - y'rs Gerrit
I was only aware on one type of twentieth century, the one starting 1901 and ending end of 2000. Where did this "English twentieth" century come from?
James D. Forrester wrote:
On Mon, 22nd November 2004, at 19:34, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com wrote:
[Snip]
Similarly, the "twentieth century" begins in 1901 and ends in 2000, unlike the English twentieth century which begins in 1900 and ends in 1999.
Umm. Actually, this is oft a point of confusion; although decades do, indeed start in xyz0 and continued until xyz9, centuries, millenia, and longer periods of time start from xy01 and continue to x(y+1)00. Hence the beginning of this millennium was on the 1st of January 200*1*, although the first decade primarily within said millennium had started the year beforehand, and the end thereof is to be the 31st of December 3000, not 2999.
[Snip]
Yours, confusingly,