Help support TMP

"New name for board." Topic

27 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board

Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board

1,168 hits since 27 Mar 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

spontoon28 Mar 2017 8:32 a.m. PST

Can we change the name of this board to "1700's Discussion", and follow that theme throughout? Same for 19th.century? Call it "1800's discussion" , etc.?

The confusion over dating drives me crazy and must do the same for others. Sometimes it is due to language differences; but often it seems to be due to posters being confused.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP28 Mar 2017 8:34 a.m. PST

No. Never make policy because dumb people can't get it right. Don't cater to the ignorant! grin

advocate28 Mar 2017 8:37 a.m. PST

We're in the 21st century. I agree with Winston.

Private Matter28 Mar 2017 8:46 a.m. PST

Another agreement for Winston, although my wording wouldn't be as harsh. Mix ups can be caused by language differences and not because someone is "dumb" but that does not mean you should change what is proper terminology for denoting to which century we are referring. I do not always get the correct wording when I am trying to speak a language other than English but doesn't mean those I am speaking with should change to accommodate me; they should help me to understand my error so I can learn to speak properly. Don't change the names of the boards.

Personal logo Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut Supporting Member of TMP28 Mar 2017 9:29 a.m. PST

The Napoleonic stuff crosses from the late 1709s to the early 1800s, andcsgould remain named "Napoleonics Boatd." The rest I care nothing about, I can figure it out either way.

Personal logo War Artisan Sponsoring Member of TMP28 Mar 2017 10:38 a.m. PST

A cartoon, just for you, Winston.

It's the only cartoon I have hanging in my workshop:


Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP28 Mar 2017 10:44 a.m. PST

In what Century was Jesus crucified? It has to be "The First Century" and everything follows from that. It is confusing, but the logic is unavoidable. It could not be called the 0000s…..

raylev328 Mar 2017 11:14 a.m. PST

+1 Winston

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP28 Mar 2017 11:19 a.m. PST

I am for keeping it like it is. However you could post the years spanning next to the name. For example:

Seven Years War (1756 to 1763)

18th Century (1701 to 1800)

American Civil War (1861 to 1865)

Might educate the masses.

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP28 Mar 2017 11:22 a.m. PST

By the way, you may want to crosspost this to the Historical Wargaming board.

daler240D Supporting Member of TMP28 Mar 2017 1:08 p.m. PST

I am sympathetic to the OP. The convention IS daft, but…

Personal logo Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut Supporting Member of TMP28 Mar 2017 3:01 p.m. PST

I *really* like Rallynow's suggestion. For those of us whose historical knowledge is skwtchy between rhe high points of our interests, it would be VERY helpful and educational.

Henry Martini28 Mar 2017 7:08 p.m. PST

Spontoon's suggestion would be consistent with the same process that's seen grammarians surrender to popular ignorance by making the usage of alternate and alternative interchangeable (just look at numerous posts on TMP). This is how languages lose their depth and richness: devolution through stupidity.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP28 Mar 2017 8:49 p.m. PST

It's not "convention," it's ordinal numbering. You don't have a century until a hundred years have past. So from 1-100 A.D. is literally the first century, as it's the first grouping of a hundred years. 101-200 A.D. is literally the second century because it's the second grouping of a hundred years. Repeat as one counts. Basic math and logic, really. That's also why 1-1000 is the first millennia (or first grouping of a thousand years), and 1001-2000 is the second millennia (or second grouping of a thousand years). We are now in the third millennia, despite having no "3" in the thousandth place in our numbering of the years.
Yes, at times it's a little disjointing to the brain, but all it takes is a little self-training to grasp the idea.

42flanker29 Mar 2017 12:21 a.m. PST

For those of us whose historical knowledge is skwtchy between rhe high points of our interests, it would be VERY helpful and educational.

Surely it would be educational, to come to understand what at present you don't understand.

4th Cuirassier29 Mar 2017 3:51 a.m. PST

Winston: harsh, but fair.

DHautpol29 Mar 2017 5:29 a.m. PST

Reminds me of all the blathering about the year 2000 being the dawn of a new millennia, when it was actually the end of the current one (as it was then).

Todd McLeister Inactive Member29 Mar 2017 5:54 a.m. PST

And spare a thought for those poor old Space Marines™ in the year 40,000, who actually think it is the 41st Millennium…

The dolts.

daler240D Supporting Member of TMP29 Mar 2017 8:35 a.m. PST

it "is" a convention. Some say "the 1900s" some say "the 20th Century"; both are correct, both are ordinal numbering.

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP29 Mar 2017 10:10 a.m. PST

Surely it would be educational, to come to understand what at present you don't understand.

Exactly! So what's your point?

Personal logo Weasel Supporting Member of TMP29 Mar 2017 11:15 a.m. PST

In the future it will all be "pre-robot uprising" anyways

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP29 Mar 2017 11:28 a.m. PST

Robot Zombie apocalypse.

martin goddard Sponsoring Member of TMP31 Mar 2017 10:04 a.m. PST

Rallynow, you have had a good idea. Thank you

Supercilius Maximus31 Mar 2017 4:49 p.m. PST

How about "Keith"?

spontoon02 Apr 2017 11:17 a.m. PST

My point was that in many cultures, 1750 is in the "settocento", for example. If one uses numerals it is less likely to end up in the wrong board.

14Bore02 Apr 2017 12:54 p.m. PST

I want to see a Bored Board

42flanker04 Apr 2017 11:04 a.m. PST

Exactly! So what's your point?

The one you appear to be agreeing with ….?

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.