Talk:2000s/Archive 6

New section
Moving long, but arbitrary, list of actors / entertainers to talk page for discussion. I don't think a formatted list of this sort adds to the article; perhaps a list of about 50 actors might be appropriate, but with criteria stated in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Actors / Entertainers
This section has been re-introduced and is gradually getting longer by the day. The problem is that there is absolutely no criteria that determines who should be included (and the reader certainly isn't told). So all we have is a list of 315 actors who were employed during the decade, who are worth mentioning in the opinion of an editor of Wikipedia. I'm sure there must be thousands more. Where do we draw the line? What merits these 315 a mention, and not others? Is anyone ever going to read any of it? For what purpose? Or is this just Listcruft ? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Criteria
I think the criteria for this section would be the following 2 things: 1: If the actor/actress in question starred in multiple TV series or movies. 2: If the TV show or movie said actor/actress was in was considered a success and an important show or movie.

Now, I won't be upset if the list is edited down somewhat, but in my opinion, this section shouldn't be deleted entirely. Whatever thoughts you have are welcome. I'm willing to listen. Mr. Brain (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a good start, except;
 * How many is multiple?
 * considered a success and important by who?
 * We really need a factual basis that isn't open to interpretation. There's scope for a list here, but it really needs to be limited in some way. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Escape_Orbit that an objective measure needs to be devised for adding to this list, and I would go further and say the list needs to be drastically reduced. It seems to me that some combination of awards (e.g. an aggregation AND distillation of the various "#Awards" sections" in 2000 in film, 2001 in film..., 2009 in film) combined with earnings/whatever of the actors involved might be useful if it was truly distilled to give a zeitgeist of the decade. But figuring out how to objectively distill the list seems daunting. It seems to me that we should strive to align the 1800s (decade), 1900s (decade), and 2000s (decade) sections (as well as the 1810s, 1820s, 1910s, 1920s, ... sections), and possibly do away with the distinction between "Culture" and "Popular culture" as section headings of decade articles generally.  My hope (as a reader) would be that eventually all of the decade articles could be of similar size and granularity, and that the decade articles could mostly host summary-style summaries of more detailed articles appropriate to the decade (e.g. 1870s in theatre or 1940s in film).  A reader many decades from now (and today's reader) would benefit from being able to subjectively compare decades based on objectively-distilled information about the different decades, if we can make figure out how to objectively distill and present the information.
 * As a baby step toward that goal, perhaps it's time to reduce the film-, television-, and music-related content in this 2000s article down to summary-style summaries of the 2000s in film, 2000s in television, and 2000s in music articles (or whatever subarticles are appropriate for the 2000s), and expand those articles instead of expanding 2000s (decade) (which is already getting too large). Having an unorganized list of bare hyperlinks to hundreds of miscellaneous "Actors / Entertainers" doesn't seem to improve this article's quality. -- RobLa (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

People Sections (again)
This is an issue that has occurred before. See previous discussions;
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * and here (I hate to say I told you so)

And here we are again where there are something like 900 names in the Actors/Entertainers section. To what purpose, who knows? What is the reader to make of this list? Read it? No-one is going to do that.

The same issues are evident from previous discussion;
 * No obvious criteria for inclusion, apart from being an entertainer or actor during the decade
 * Inclusion is all down to the opinion of the editor adding them
 * The list can never be complete, there will be thousands of them.
 * This article is not List of Entertainers from the 2000s, nor is it Category:21st-century actors.
 * The article is already excessively long and listed as such. We need good reason for adding even more length to it.

With this in mind, I am being bold and again removing this section, back to what it was after previous discussion. Happy to hear any reason why it should be added and a more sensible way of managing it. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Re-introducing an actors/entertainers section...possibly.
If I wanted to re-introduce an actors/entertainers section for this article, would a reference from IMDb (Internet Movie Database) be acceptable? Or how about a list of who the top actors and entertainers were from the 2000s from an entertainment website? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. Mr. Brain (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC—therefore moved. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I proposed this article is more likely a primary topic before. The Houndsworth (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2000s (decade) → 2000s
 * 2000s → 2000s (disambiguation)
 * Support I can't imagine "2000s" being used to describe the entire century or millennium being awfully common. Usually it would be "the 21st century" instead.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Clear main topic. Dimadick (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Makes sense. If successful we should consider moving 1000s (decade) as well.--76.67.169.43 (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm honestly not sure about it extending back into the past. Like, if someone said "She was around in the 1800s", would you assume they meant the decade or the century? Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  Java Hurricane  09:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think this article needs to have a redirect. When you're talking about the 2000s, I know what you're talking about without saying it's a decade. Mr. Brain (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article itself includes the statement that "In the English-speaking world, a name for the decade was never universally accepted", and it mentions the large variety of vernacular nicknames used around the world. Here in the UK, I have never seen nor heard "the 2000s" used to refer to the 2000-09 decade, with "the noughties" most often used in the UK and many other countries, as stated in the article on "Aughts", which itself is said to be preferred in North America. Similarly, the comparable term "1900s" is commonly used as a shortcut reference to the 20th century, so "the 2000s" is far more likely to be understood as referring to the whole period since the year 2000. (Incidentally, I notice that the proposer is now indefinitely blocked for using their Username as a sockpuppet for a previously indefinitely blocked Username.) Blurryman (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. On the one hand, having combed through the first few pages of Google results for "2000s" and "2000s UK," the term seems to almost exclusively refer to the decade, both internationally and in the UK. This would win the COMMONNAME point. On the other hand, though: Firstly, 2000s and its redirects get, on average, 45 views a day. This article and its redirects get, on average, 1,148 views a day. Even if we assume that everyone who winds up at the dab page clicks through to this article, which seems quite unlikely, that would make up just 3.9% of the views. Secondly, if we move this, this will change back someday. Maybe in a year, maybe a decade, maybe a century, but the time will come that "2000s" is more ambiguous than it is today. (If this move goes through: Hello, O future people reading this! Ping me if I'm still active/alive.) Still, the eventual reversal of a move isn't a particularly strong reason to oppose it. (There's other pages we know we're quite likely gonna have to move someday, like Prince George of Cambridge.) That's why this is only a weak oppose. Tamzin (they/them) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 04:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Having a large variety of vernacular nicknames doesn't matter. The Wikipedia article has to have one title and can have any number of redirects to it. In determining which of the large variety of possible names for the decade to use for the article, "2000s" was selected. If it's not the primary topic for the title "2000s", it needs a qualifier. If it is the primary topic for "2000s", it doesn't. Base on the above, it is currently the primary topic for "2000s" and should be moved to the base name. Future Wikipedia can handle the arrangement if it changes in the future. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On what basis was "2000s" "selected"? When the List of decades was created on 20 May 2001, using "1900s", "1910s", and "2000s", etc., in preference to the objective ordinal terms used for centuries and millennnia, no sources or evidence of their use were cited, and it was done despite the numerous articles written before and since about the lack of unanimity for names for 00-09 and 10-20 decades. This was a clear and obvious breach of Wikipedia's fundamental principle of neutrality, with Wikipedia being used to promote one particular controversial usage, and this present move is a continuation of that. It is quite probable that any popular use since of "the 2000s" has been influenced by its selection in Wikipedia. This week in the UK, the BBC will be broadcasting a programme about that decade entitled "The Noughties." Blurryman (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Pronounced "twenty-hundreds". Compare "nineteen-hundreds" (1900s) and "eighteen-hundreds" (1800s). --40bus (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To which one could just as easily say, 'Pronounced "two thousands", since it's the plural of "two thousand". Compare "nineteen-hundred" (1900) and "eighteen-hundred" (1800).' But really, my reasoning, or yours, doesn't matter, no matter how good it is.  In order to go in Wikipedia it needs to be verified in a reliable source. Dan Bloch (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 1900 is "one thousand nine hundred". --40bus (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Music pics
What photos do we want included in this section? I figured that in addition to Eminem and Beyonce, Linkin Park, Kanye West and either Taylor Swift or Carry Underwood. Of course, User:Dilbaggg is very passionate about not including Swift for some reason, claiming she wasn't as big this decade. Yes, she wasn't as big in this decade as she was in the next, but that was explained in the caption, and to say her influence wasn't that notable yet is completely false, see Fearless (Taylor Swift album) and subsequent videos and singles in the late 2000s. Regardless, I am okay with her photo not being included, but to say that only two photos is enough for this massive section is wrong. We should move to highlight the main genres of the decade - rap and hip hop (Em and Ye), pop (Beyonce), county pop (Underwood / Swift) and nu metal / hard rock (Linkin Park). Perhaps emo rock as well, but I'd say the photo in Fashion is sufficient. Let's discuss. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Flyedit32 I already discussed this in your talk page, so I will just paste the points here:

On 2000s stop adding Taylor Swift's picture based on your fan crush for her. It is indeed picture flooding, nobody wants it except you, go seek WP:RfC or it will keep getting reverted and please do not WP:EW. Also there were far more prominent musicians in that era than her, Kayne West, Akon, Lady Gaga and more. But Eminem and Beyoncé are enough, one male and one female representative, a perfect 1:1 ratio. Maybe you shuld take your crush to the 2010s article during which time she indeed reached Eminem and Beyoncé level prominence, but 2000s wasn't her peak, and that picture cannot stay based on your single fan crush. So seek a consensus, or stop. I have assumed WP:AGF for now, and this is not a warning, I see you already however were blocked on february, anyway next time it will be a warn, please do not borderl ine WP:EW. Best wishes.

Now when your edit is challenged and reverted and you keep editing it back, and violate WP:TRR you start an edit war for which you were once blocked for the exact same thing. Please stop, and two pictures are sufficient here, there is no need for excessive pictures. There were many break out stars in 2000s like Taylor Swift, Justin biber, Akon, Lady Gaga and endless list, there is no scope to include 1000s of singers who broke out in the decade, and you selectively adding Taylor Swift's picture is pure fancrut and you do not even cite WP:RS for your additions. Eminem and Beyonce were hue in the 2000s, but Taylor Swift's best decade was 2010s she is ore fitting there. Many other musicians had successful albums that period, such as Freedom (Akon album), but you selectively add only Taylor Swif's picture because you are her fan, but this is an encyclopedia and not a fandom, there have been far more successful breakouts in the 2000s than taylor Swift, but only the two biggest musicians of that time eminem and Beyonce are WP:Notable enough to have their own pics, otherwise we could add 1000s which will be picture flooding which you are attempting to do. So please seek a proper consensus with WP:RfC rather than blindly edit warring. Thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

2010 is apart of the 2000s
Now I put it on wiki and it keeps getting reverted to let me prove my point Just calculate it we started year 1 not 0 so add to 10 years (decade) it because year 11 so that the start of the new decade then do it again 21 then 31 then 41 then 51 the 61 so if you continue on the pattern that a new decade starts when the last digit of a year is 1 you will reach 2011 which is where the new decade started so technically 2010 is apart of the 2000s Pro1902 (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Your point is understood, but your additions to the lead sentence are unencyclopaedic and lack a source. Please stop reverting without addressing those concerns. —Legoless (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you mean by your additions to the lead sentence are unencyclopaedic and lack a source. Pro1902 (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also added a source just click on the text Pro1902 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Decades differ from culture to culture because time is relative. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 16:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but what I am saying is true Pro1902 (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:The truth. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 21:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Or more seriously, WP:Verifiability, not truth. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If the 2000s refers to a ten year period, then it's all the years that begin with "200". So 2010 is NOT part of the 2000s. This is a different issue from which years are in the first decade of the 21st century. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Computer viruses as non-natural disasters?
In the 2000s computer viruses reached an unpreceded scale in terms of effects on society and I do think some of the big ones like Mydoom, Sobig, SQL Slammer, Storm(botnet) deserve a spot on the non-natural disasters list. Also there oddly isn't any real mention of computer viruses under Computing and Internet. 172.116.113.102 (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

A revamp to the internet section in the intro.
A revamp to the internet section in the intro: 1: Friendster wasn't the first social networking site, this would be clear if you read the site's Wiki page. 2: Make it more data-focused, only mentioning websites that were in the top 10. Koopinator (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)