EXHIBITION: 20th CENTURY - A time-traveling experience through the 1900s!

[dragonbane]

Wikipedia can change each day, I don't know what was displayed 29 September (you can search that in its updates history btw.), at the moment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century I read that 1900-1999 is normally used.

On the same page you link to it says:

Although a century can mean any arbitrary period of 100 years, there are two viewpoints on the nature of standard centuries. One is based on strict construction, while the other is based on popular perception.

I.e., one is strictly correct, and the other is popular (normally used) but strictly wrong.

But this falls into the same category of correcting things like people saying "I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less." Best just to roll your eyes, but don't engage....which I should have done admittedly.

But nice orca!

Dude, you REALLY need to stop thinking you are proving that you are "strictly correct" while citing a publicly updateable source. Doing so, even if you're correct by accident, makes you look uneducated at BEST. Try this source instead:

https://ask.loc.gov/science/faq/399936

That said, regardless of historical issues, claiming that the year 2000 was part of the 1900s and not part of the 2000s is also Strictly Wrong, prima facie. While I acknowledge that there was no Year Zero in the Gregorian Calendar, I disagree that this makes the year 100 part of the First Century. Rather, I accept instead that the Gregorians didn't think it through, and that the first Gregorian Calendar Century is only 99 years as a result. They should have taken a Leap Year.

[Meeplelowda]

That said, regardless of historical issues, claiming that the year 2000 was part of the 1900s and not part of the 2000s is also Strictly Wrong,

Nice straw man. Find and quote where I said the year 2000 was part of the 1900s. I haven't edited anything above, so you should be able to find it. Maybe someone else in this thread made that argument, but I didn't. 2000 is the last year in the 20th century, but not part of the 1900s. Those are two distinct propositions.

Also, I was just pointing out that Wikipedia was inconsistent with the proposition someone else was citing it for, regardless of whether it should be relied on at all. I'm well aware that it can be edited. I agree that your source is more authoritative. I also suspect it will not persuade anyone on the other side of the debate.