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

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

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]

Discussion

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)

old See also

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]

Redo 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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]