Wasn't this the first year of a new decade?

[PureChaos]

there have been a lot of threads over the past couple of weeks involving game of the decade, biggest disappointment of the decade, year of the decade and stuff like that but i thought that 2010 was the first year of a new decade. at first i thought that they may have been resurrected threads from last year but the Game of the Decade one was done December 25th 2010.

am i missing something?

 

[Lacsapix]

I have never seen it that way, but you are right.
it is 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.
but most people do 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0.

 

[Danzaivar]

2000-2010 = one decade.

01: 2000
02: 2001
03: 2002
04: 2003
05: 2004
06: 2005
07: 2006
08: 2007
09: 2008
10: 2009
11: 2010

A decade is ten years, not eleven.

- - - - -

OT: Some places do years 1-10, others do 0-9. I'm guessing that 'end of a decade' makes people feel special so they're just doing it twice in a row.

I'm also guessing 2010 was such a crap year for most that people also want to put it away as 'last decade' and hope this next decade will be better.

 

[MonkeySlayer]

2000-2010 = one decade.

No, OP is right. Start of 2000 to end of 2010 = 11 years.
start of 2000 to start of 2010 would have been a decade, oh well.

Take it Easy

:edit: Ninja'd, bugger.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I'm trying to think this through and I can't help but think that someone somewhere has made this way more difficult than it needs to be. I look at it like this:

1990 isn't part of the 1980's. 1980 isn't part of the 1970's. 2010 isn't part of the 2000's (which is a horrible way to refer to that particular decade)

2010 was the first year of the decade we're currently in. The last day of last decade was 12-31-2009. I don't know who's trying to lump this year in with last decade but they're mistaken.

 

[drbarno]

Well, seeing as all of the decade stuff for television was done at the end of last year I would say your right.
I'm guessing it's because of different interpretations of when a decade starts.

 

[MikailCaboose]

I think it's people in the "A multiple of 10? It must be the 10th year!" mindset.

 

[Naheal]

2000-2010 = one decade.

2000-2009. The last decade sucked.

Edit: Elaboration.

The last decade was such absolute shit that, if anyone asked me if I wanted to live my high school years over again, they'd get a blank stare, followed by a flat what, followed by hysterical laughter, followed by "Oh, wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder", followed by me walking away.

 

[Steven True]

The confusion all stems from the fact that the calendar we use was devised before the numeral 0 came into use in the western world. The first year of the A.D. or C.E. should have been year 0, but it isn't. It's year 1.
The calendar goes,

2 B.C.E.
1 B.C.E.
1 C.E.
2 C.E.

Year zero is missing.

January 1st, 1 C.E. was the first day of the first decade of the first century.
The second decade started on 11 C.E., the third on 21 C.E. and so on.
All decades begin on a multiple of ten plus 1.
This decade extended from Jan 1st, 2001 to Dec 31st, 2010
The new decade begins on Jan 1st, 2011.

This from wikipedia:

The absence of a year 0 leads to some confusion concerning the boundaries of longer decimal intervals, such as decades and centuries. For example, each decade begins with a year ending in 1, not 0. The third millennium of the Gregorian calendar began on 1 January 2001, rather than the widely celebrated 1 January 2000. Likewise, the 20th century began on 1 January 1901.

This rule results from the fact that the Gregorian calendar begins with a year 1 instead of 0. Cardinal and ordinal numbering of years is therefore identical: The year 10 is the tenth year of the calendar and the end of the first decade. The year 11 is the first year of the second decade, and so on. In spite of this rule, years ending in 0, rather than 1, are commonly perceived as marking the beginning of a new decade, century, or millennium.

If the Gregorian calendar had begun with a year 0 as its first year, then the year 10 would have been the 11th year of the calendar and the first year of the second decade. Similarly, the year 2000 would have been the 2,001st year of the calendar, therefore the actual first year of the 21st century and the third millennium.

 

[PureChaos]

The confusion all stems from the fact that the calendar we use was devised before the numeral 0 came into use in the western world. The first year of the A.D. or C.E. should have been year 0, but it isn't. It's year 1.
The calendar goes,

2 B.C.E.
1 B.C.E.
1 C.E.
2 C.E.

Year zero is missing.

January 1st, 1 C.E. was the first day of the first decade of the first century.
The second decade started on 11 C.E., the third on 21 C.E. and so on.
All decades begin on a multiple of ten plus 1.
This decade extended from Jan 1st, 2001 to Dec 31st, 2010
The new decade begins on Jan 1st, 2011.

ooooh, that makes sense and does explain it

 

[Naheal]

The confusion all stems from the fact that the calendar we use was devised before the numeral 0 came into use in the western world. The first year of the A.D. or C.E. should have been year 0, but it isn't. It's year 1.
The calendar goes,

2 B.C.E.
1 B.C.E.
1 C.E.
2 C.E.

Year zero is missing.

January 1st, 1 C.E. was the first day of the first decade of the first century.
The second decade started on 11 C.E., the third on 21 C.E. and so on.
All decades begin on a multiple of ten plus 1.
This decade extended from Jan 1st, 2001 to Dec 31st, 2010
The new decade begins on Jan 1st, 2011.

This from wikipedia:

The absence of a year 0 leads to some confusion concerning the boundaries of longer decimal intervals, such as decades and centuries. For example, each decade begins with a year ending in 1, not 0. The third millennium of the Gregorian calendar began on 1 January 2001, rather than the widely celebrated 1 January 2000. Likewise, the 20th century began on 1 January 1901.

This rule results from the fact that the Gregorian calendar begins with a year 1 instead of 0. Cardinal and ordinal numbering of years is therefore identical: The year 10 is the tenth year of the calendar and the end of the first decade. The year 11 is the first year of the second decade, and so on. In spite of this rule, years ending in 0, rather than 1, are commonly perceived as marking the beginning of a new decade, century, or millennium.

If the Gregorian calendar had begun with a year 0 as its first year, then the year 10 would have been the 11th year of the calendar and the first year of the second decade. Similarly, the year 2000 would have been the 2,001st year of the calendar, therefore the actual first year of the 21st century and the third millennium.

That is irrelevant to current time period markers. The '90s started in 1990, not 1991. Therefore, the millenium started in 2000, not 2001. Also, the 2010s started Jan. 2010, not in a week.

 

[Fraught]

*snip*

That is irrelevant to current time period markers. The '90s started in 1990, not 1991. Therefore, the millenium started in 2000, not 2001. Also, the 2010s started Jan. 2010, not in a week.

So's your "the '90s started in 1990" irrelevant.

Wikipedia presents a plausible explanation, I can take you as seriously saying "X started in Y" as I can take someone else saying something completely else.

 

[Naheal]

*snip*

That is irrelevant to current time period markers. The '90s started in 1990, not 1991. Therefore, the millenium started in 2000, not 2001. Also, the 2010s started Jan. 2010, not in a week.

So's your "the '90s started in 1990" irrelevant.

Wikipedia presents a plausible explanation, I can take you as seriously saying "X started in Y" as I can take someone else saying something completely else.

Unfortunately, the modern era measurement that's used for that would make such a path a weak one in general.

 

[Nimcha]

A decade means nothing more than '10 years'. So you could say a new decade starts every year. 1994-2003 was a decade. But nobody acknowledges it as one because it looks nicer to start at 0. That's all, there's no need for the 'Our calendar started at the year 1!!!' debate.

 

[Alade]

My country uses the 1-10 system, to be honest it does feel a bit more right, although I can see the 0-9 system making a lot of sense too, it's personal taste, no hurt in doing this twice in 11 years.

 

[Vykrel]

2000-2010 = one decade.

thats 11 years. 1 decade = 10 years.

personally, i use the 0-10 system, when it comes to years. 2000-2009 were the two thousands, and now we are in the twenty-tens. a little over a decade from now well be in the twenty-twenties, etc.

i have been seeing many decade-based gaming videos from a variety of different websites, even though i saw just as many last year.

 

[viranimus]

We cant even figure out the concept o our own calender, but yet some people are worried about a thousands of year old calander from an extinct people? No wonder such things happen.