Talk:23rd century

Technically, the 23rd century would last from 2201 to 2300, since there is no year 0. (The first century AD lasted from 1 to 100, the second century from 101 to 200, and so forth. I'm sure you all remember pedants like me pointing this out in 2000, since the new century and millennium didn't really start until 2001.)  Do we want to be accurate and change this entry (and the other century pages), or do we want to be inaccurate and keep it simple, for the sake of the decade pages (since if we're accurate, the 2300s would be divided between the 23rd and 24th centuries)? -- Josiah Rowe 09:17, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Since it's been a month and nobody's replied, I take it nobody really cares one way or the other. So unless someone objects here, I'll go over the "century" pages in the next few days and fix them to be accurate (cf. and the like). --Josiah Rowe 08:19, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
 * Actually, I just noticed this too. I support changing the dates to the accurate format you describe. -- SmokeDetector47 08:29, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
 * I'd prefer to keep the "simpler" format. It might be inaccurate in the strictest sense, but I think that shifting the dates would cause more confusion than it's worth. -- Cid Highwind 12:45, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
 * We wouldn't really need to move pages, since decades (e.g. the 2200s, 2210s) do include the "zero" years. See how Wikipedia handles  and, for example.--Josiah Rowe 16:43, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Flashback?
Does it really belong here? The events of it were all in Tuvok's mind. Tough Little Ship 10:32, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it should be removed. -- Excelsior 18:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)