Talk:Century

Years Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Time Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

elciton president

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving. -- Yamara 11:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please clarify how the year 0 (in "astrononomical" calculation) would belong to the first century BC!

• 10⁹ years - aeon – 10⁶ years - eon – 10³ years - millennium – 10² years - century – 10¹ years - decade – 10⁰ years - year

• kilo-annum (ka/Ka) - 10e3 years

• annum (a) - kilo-annum (ka) - mega-annum (Ma) - giga-annum (Ga)

• Centuries
• decade (ten years)
• aeon
• eon
• era (undetermined)
• indictio (fifteen years in Roman fiscality)
• lustrum (five years)
• Millennium (ten centuries)
• annum (year)

I excised this, as User:LimoWreck points out, other units of time shouldn't show up on the see also. I don't see the reason behind it though. It seems like a perfectly good reason to put it into the see also section 132.205.45.148 02:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe navigation templates might be a good idea? --Kjoonlee 05:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this and was bold. Please review the edit. There's not a whole bunch of new information, just a bit more nicely presented (hopefully). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCCRogers (talk • contribs) 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful if we mention under 'non-ordinal naming' that Italians (and we too) for art-historical purposes use the century naming convention Quatrocento, Cinquecento etc. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this answers why sometimes Scandinavians say "century" when they really mean "hundred" because they don't have the ordinal distinction that "century" has in English. But then this needs to say they call what the first 99 years of the Gregorian calander. Or do they not group those years into something?76.120.66.57 (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb question removed. Sorry.Breadbelly (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add the abbreviation "c." for "century" to the article, but a bot immediately revereded the edit. A bug notification had no effect. Can perhaps an admin make the modification? -- 95.208.230.48 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]