| spontoon | 28 Mar 2017 9:32 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 | 28 Mar 2017 9:34 a.m. PST |
No. Never make policy because dumb people can't get it right. Don't cater to the ignorant!  |
| advocate | 28 Mar 2017 9:37 a.m. PST |
We're in the 21st century. I agree with Winston. |
| Private Matter | 28 Mar 2017 9:46 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. |
| Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 28 Mar 2017 10:29 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. |
 War Artisan  | 28 Mar 2017 11:38 a.m. PST |
A cartoon, just for you, Winston. It's the only cartoon I have hanging in my workshop: link |
 deadhead  | 28 Mar 2017 11:44 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….. |
| raylev3 | 28 Mar 2017 12:14 p.m. PST |
|
| Old Contemptibles | 28 Mar 2017 12:19 p.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. |
| Old Contemptibles | 28 Mar 2017 12:22 p.m. PST |
By the way, you may want to crosspost this to the Historical Wargaming board. |
| daler240D | 28 Mar 2017 2:08 p.m. PST |
I am sympathetic to the OP. The convention IS daft, but… |
| Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 28 Mar 2017 4:01 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 Martini | 28 Mar 2017 8:08 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. |
 Parzival | 28 Mar 2017 9:49 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. |
| 42flanker | 29 Mar 2017 1:21 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 Cuirassier | 29 Mar 2017 4:51 a.m. PST |
Winston: harsh, but fair. |
| DHautpol | 29 Mar 2017 6:29 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 | 29 Mar 2017 6:54 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 | 29 Mar 2017 9:35 a.m. PST |
it "is" a convention. Some say "the 1900s" some say "the 20th Century"; both are correct, both are ordinal numbering. |
| Old Contemptibles | 29 Mar 2017 11:10 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? |
| Weasel | 29 Mar 2017 12:15 p.m. PST |
In the future it will all be "pre-robot uprising" anyways |
| Old Contemptibles | 29 Mar 2017 12:28 p.m. PST |
|
| martin goddard | 31 Mar 2017 11:04 a.m. PST |
Rallynow, you have had a good idea. Thank you |
| Supercilius Maximus | 31 Mar 2017 5:49 p.m. PST |
|
| spontoon | 02 Apr 2017 12:17 p.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. |
| 14Bore | 02 Apr 2017 1:54 p.m. PST |
I want to see a Bored Board |
| 42flanker | 04 Apr 2017 12:04 p.m. PST |
Exactly! So what's your point? The one you appear to be agreeing with ….? |
gets started with Flintloque.