Talk:2000s: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:10, 3 January 2005

Latest revision as of 00:06, 20 August 2025

Line 1:

{{Skip to talk}}

==World Leaders==

{{Talk header|search=yes}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|vital=yes|

{{WikiProject Years|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject History|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Lists|importance=Low}}

}}

{{press |author=Paul Grondahl |title=2000-2009 |org=[[Times Union (Albany)|Times Union]] |url= http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=882419 |date=December 27, 2009}}

{{WikiWorld|Image:2000s WikiWorld.png}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:2000s/Archive index

|mask=Talk:2000s/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 140K

|counter = 6

|minthreadsleft = 4

|minthreadstoarchive = 2

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:2000s/Archive %(counter)d

}}

== Renaming of Article ==

It seems a touch America-centric to have Condoleeza Rice as a world leader - she's neither a President, Monarch nor Prime Minister (or equivalent). Equally, I'd question the constitutional monarchs' places, as they have very little real power. As technical head of state, though, they have more legitimacy here than Rice. [[User:Cruci|Cruci]]

The issue within this article is that it speaks of the 2000s within a the United States perspective, if that is the case then should the article be renamed to "2000s in the United States" or something similar. [[User:Connor W|Connor W]] ([[User talk:Connor W|talk]]) 16:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

---

:''The first post-Internet decade''

:I don't think this is a good way to go. The article may have a US perspective, but it has a huge amount of non-US information, in the Politics and wars, Disasters, Economics, Religion, and other sections. [[User:Danbloch|Dan Bloch]] ([[User talk:Danbloch|talk]]) 18:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

By what definition? The Internet has not passed, so this cannot mean "the first decade after the demise of the Internet"; but, since the Internet was born in the 1960s, neither does this decade qualify as "the first decade since the inception of the Internet". If it means "the first decade after a lot of noise was made about the Internet, even though it was quite mature before then", I question the validity of this title. -- [[User:Bignose|Bignose]]

:Seems like the article is more skewed to a British perspective than a US perspective [[User:Oli Wheeler|Oli Wheeler]] ([[User talk:Oli Wheeler|talk]]) 20:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

::How? [[User:Connor W|Connor W]] ([[User talk:Connor W|talk]]) 14:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

== Should I restore People section? ==

:''The International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World (2001-2010)''

2000s in officialy retro and i beleive it could be restored. [[User:EditingIsMyHobby|EditingIsMyHobby]] ([[User talk:EditingIsMyHobby|talk]]) 20:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I initially thought somebody was having a joke with this, but I checked and it's a genuine UN declaration. I hereby wish to start the campaign to have the 2011-2020 decade named the "International Decade for Having International Organisations Tackle Real Issues Instead of Generating Stupid Platitudes" --[[:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]

----

== Web 2.0 ==

''From article:''

@[[User:Escape Orbit|Escape Orbit]]:

* terrorist attack against Afghanistan, directly killing at least 5000

I quote from [[MOS:LINKCLARITY]]: "The link target and the link label do not have to match exactly, but the link must be as intuitive as possible (see § Intuitiveness)." The link is clear and intuitive, especially since Web 2.0 is defined as a generation of websites that emphasize user-generated content and participation among and exchange between users.

* "silent" [[genocide]] (see ICC definition (c)) by cutting off food supplies of about 50% of 7.5 million Aghans

"[...] sources about globalization do not mention web 2.0" is simply a [[straw man]]. I wrote that trivial and/or obvious statements don't require references, and this is such a case. Numerous examples are given for Web 2.0 websites in the following sentences, and the impact of such websites on society is also explained. My added content is therefore correct simply from logic and doesn't require a source in a similar manner like "1+1=2" doesn't. [[User:Maxeto0910|Maxeto0910]] ([[User talk:Maxeto0910|talk]]) 06:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

:That's all very well, but the reader has no idea where the link is taking them, and the relevance only becomes apparent once they arrive there. The statement has also been added before a sentence that says "This contributed to globalization during the decade", which refers to the growth of the internet, ''not'' "emphasis on user interaction". So the meaning of this sentence has been changed in a way that it no longer reflects what the following sources say. --[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] ^{[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]} 08:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

::"[...] the reader has no idea where the link is taking them"

::Like I said, I think that the link is relatively clear in this context, especially considering that users can simply move their mouse over it when on PC or hold the link for a few seconds when on mobile to see where it leads to. Also, like I already quoted from MOS:LINKCLARITY, the link target and link label don't have to match exactly; the link just has be as intuitive as possible. Anyway, I'd definitely argue that the link has value to readers, as the emergence and rise of the Web 2.0 is a crucial aspect of the development of the Internet of the 2000s.

::"So the meaning of this sentence has been changed in a way that it no longer reflects what the following sources say."

::The sources simply refer to the globalization aspect caused by the Internet; they don't explicitly relate to the growing Internet use as such as a requirement (I mean, it is indeed a requirement and quite trivial, but that's not what the sources cover). And since the ability of users to interact with each other as well as the growing Internet access and resulting use is essential for online communication, all of these developments are interlinked and mutually dependent on each other anyway. [[User:Maxeto0910|Maxeto0910]] ([[User talk:Maxeto0910|talk]]) 10:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC

:::But the problem is that it is ''you'' that is linking them, not the sources. The globalization caused by the internet may have nothing to do with Web 2.0, it may have happened ''despite'' Web 2.0. Maybe the growth and globalization was overwhelmingly within the realm of Web 1.0. Or maybe Web 2.0's involvement has simply gone unnoticed by the sources. But it's not for you to decide it played a significant part. I'm not adverse to Web 2.0 being mentioned, but levering it into the middle of things here, propping up both growth and globalization, is not supported by sources.

:::As for your Easter Egg link; This link could lead the reader to a great number of places. Is it [[social media]] (my first guess)? Is it [[online shopping]]? Is it [[web application]]? [[peer-to-peer]]? [[MMOG]]? How is the reader to know, unless they follow the link to unlock the prize? I [[Cycling|went to the shops today]]. Now tell me where that link goes simply by reading it. Cos it conforms to the same standard as your link. It's on topic, it expands on what I think you need to know, but it could be dozens of different things. Did you guess correctly? --[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] ^{[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]} 16:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

:::"But the problem is that it is you that is linking them, not the sources."

:::This is, again, an argument from pure logic. Globalization throughout the Internet is impossible with Web 1.0, as the term Web 2.0 by its nature describes websites that enable user communication and interaction with each other, which is pretty much the definition of globalization.

:::Like I already explained, I don't see the linking as such as a major problem, especially not since you do have a preview of where it leads to (moving mouse over it or holding the link). Having a not entirely clear link that is potentially relevant and interesting for readers, as it describes a crucial element of the Internet's development of the 2000s, is still better than not having a link at all. [[User:Maxeto0910|Maxeto0910]] ([[User talk:Maxeto0910|talk]]) 19:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

::::@[[User:Maxeto0910|Maxeto0910]] I do not recognise your definition of globalization. And your opinion of what web 2.0 made possible, that web 1.0 couldn't, remains unsupported by the sources on this article. It is not "pure logic".

::::You also are making assumptions about how the reader is reading the article (mobile devices do not have mice to hover). And no, [[WP:EASTEREGG|a link that leads the reader into the unknown is not better than no link at all]]. Particularly when the relevance of the link is not supported by any sources. [[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] ^{[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]} 23:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::This is not my definition of globalization, but the general definition of it. See the Wikipedia article about it. Also, arguing that this would require sources remains a straw man, at least as long as you don't give any proper arguments or at least an explanation as to why you think that this isn't a topic of pure logic and definition. Simply saying that you disagree without explaining why is neither a valid argument nor helpful. Furthermore, your linked guideline doesn't state that a link should be completely avoided simply because it isn't absolutely clear; it merely states that the link should be as transparent as possible (just like I already wrote), which is always relative: When a link can't be 100% clear by exactly matching link target and link label, it's sufficient to be as clear and intuitive as possible in a given context. [[User:Maxeto0910|Maxeto0910]] ([[User talk:Maxeto0910|talk]]) 23:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::Where does [[globalisation]] say it is about "user communication and interaction with each other"?

::::::I don't think you understand the meaning of a [[straw man]] argument either. I am not misrepresenting your argument, I am saying it is not in line with [[WP:RS|Wikipedia policy of requiring sources]]. Your position is that this is optional when [[WP:BLUESKY|you reckon it's obvious]]. I'm saying that your addition is is '''not''' obvious. If you want to link Web 2.0 in this statement , then produce sources that mention it in this context and actually ''say'' you are talking about "Web 2.0". Don't hide the connection behind a link, thinking this negates the need to cite it.

::::::It is not obvious "pure logic" because you are making a double jump from "internet growth in the 2000s facilitated globalisation" to "interaction between users" to "Web 2.0". But what evidence is there that there is any connection? Where are the sources that say this? This is all, at best, [[WP:SYNTH|original synthesis]].

::::::[[WP:EASTEREGG|Guidelines]] specifically say "''Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them (or, at least, '''to hover their mouse pointer on those links to get page previews in the form of navigation popups''') before understanding where they lead.''" (Emphasis mine) And yet that is '''exactly''' what you are suggesting the reader should do to appreciate your conclusion of where the connections lead.

::::::I always find in disputes like this that reference back to core policy is the solution, and that policy is [[WP:V|Verifiability]]. If you have a source that states what you think is "pure logic", then we have a solution. If you don't, then it can not be in the article. Simple as that. --[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] ^{[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]} 11:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::"Where does globalisation say it is about "user communication and interaction with each other"?"

:::::::In [[Globalization|its Wikipedia article]], according to which it "is the process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments worldwide". Thus, the definition of contributing to globalization cannot be meet by pre-Web 2.0 websites by their nature, because those websites by definition weren't designed to enable the interaction with and exchange of user-generated content.

:::::::"I don't think you understand the meaning of a straw man argument either. I am not misrepresenting your argument […]"

:::::::I explicitly wrote that it's only a straw man argument as long as you don't give any concrete reason or argument as to why you think it's not obvious, which you didn't, because only then you would adress my argument. Like I already wrote: Simply arguing that it's not obvious without explaining why isn't a valid counter argument, and as long as you don't substantiate your view, I will stick to my opinion that there is no need for a reference because it's true by definition and therefore an obvious statement.

:::::::"It is not obvious "pure logic" because you are making a double jump from "internet growth in the 2000s facilitated globalisation" to "interaction between users" to "Web 2.0". But what evidence is there that there is any connection? Where are the sources that say this? This is all, at best, original synthesis."

:::::::You're going in circles: I already said that there's no need for a reference for logical and/or obvious statements, and I already explained and gave reasons for why I think this is a logical and obvious statement, namely that Web 2.0 is a requirement for the possibility of globalization by its definition. You dispute my approach, which I would be fine with if you'd give a reason or argument; but instead of doing that, you simply repeat your claim that it just isn't obvious. Also, there are many articles which state that Web 2.0 is a crucial development of the 2000s and that it contributed to and/or enabled exchange and interaction among users and companies on a large scale (which, again, is pretty much the definition of globalization):

:::::::*https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/05/10/bridging-web-20-to-web3-means-taking-the-best-of-both-worlds/

:::::::*https://medium.com/@yaserarabth/web-1-0-web-2-0-and-the-emergence-of-web-3-0-a-comprehensive-overview-1d8de74e77d2

:::::::*https://www.britannica.com/topic/Web-20

:::::::*https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-06-16/demystifying-web-2-dot-0businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

:::::::*https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna13154533

:::::::*https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-web-20/

:::::::*https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-web-2-0-p2-3486624

:::::::*https://www.znetlive.com/blog/web-2-0/

:::::::"And yet that is exactly what you are suggesting the reader should do to appreciate your conclusion of where the connections lead."

:::::::No, I simply said that this is an option if you have absolutely no clue where a link will lead you to. I'm neither saying that this would be appropriate if it'd be necessary for all users to get a clue of where the link will lead to nor that this would actually be required for all users in this case: Like I said, I think that the link is quite clear in this context. I acknowledge that the link may not be entirely clear to all users, as, like you explained, there is indeed room for interpretation, but like I wrote, a link doesn't have to be 100% clear, which also simply isn't always possible. Thus, it's okay if the link appears to not be entirely intuitive to all users, as long as the link adds value (because it's a crucial development of the 2000s Internet) and as long as it's not entirely cryptic to all readers. [[User:Maxeto0910|Maxeto0910]] ([[User talk:Maxeto0910|talk]]) 15:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::::We are indeed going in circles because you keep saying "it's obvious because it follows a definition that I've made up that allows me to join the dots between one and the other". I don't know what more you expect me to say, other than '''it's not obvious'''. I cannot prove a negative, only you can prove that it is obvious. If it was obvious then you would be no trouble finding sources that say it. Instead you've got sources about web 2.0 that (by means of your jump in logic that only you think is obvious and do not appear in the sources) contributed to globalisation. That's nowhere good enough.--[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] ^{[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]} 16:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Again: This is not my definition; this is literally the general definition of globalization, which also stands in its Wikipedia article. Like I showed, there are tons of articles that explicitly state that Web 2.0 contributed to and/or enabled exchange and interaction among users and companies on a large scale, which is the definition of globalization. The reason why there are so few sources which in this context directly add that this is called globalization is probably because this aspect is so easily derivable by definition and therefore so trivial that almost no one who thinks logically would even remotely deny it or care about a "proof" for something that's already clear by definition. For a similar reason, there are hardly any articles in the popular media about the fact that the U.S. dollar is the official currency of the USA. [[User:Maxeto0910|Maxeto0910]] ([[User talk:Maxeto0910|talk]]) 18:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::@[[User:Maxeto0910|Maxeto0910]] I'll ask you again to indicate precisely where you are getting this definition. [[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] ^{[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]} 03:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::I already stated that. [[User:Maxeto0910|Maxeto0910]] ([[User talk:Maxeto0910|talk]]) 15:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::::@[[User:Maxeto0910|Maxeto0910]] You've stated a "general definition" that is your interpretation of what the [[Globalization]] article says. In which case I'll ask you to read Wikipedia policy on [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and [[WP:SYNTH|original synthesis]]. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. You also cannot combine sources to construct an argument not made in any individual source. That is, you cannot take your interpretation of what globalisation is, add it to the cited fact that the use of the internet expanded in the 2000s, add that to citded increased Globalization during the same period, and lastly add the introduction of Web 2.0 at the same time, to suggest that web 2.0 was behind it all (in an easter egg link) ''unless you have a reliable source that already combined all these things''. You don't have that, you only have sources that combine internet use with globalization. You cannot add original synthesis to the article.

::::::::::::However, can I suggest a solution? Simply do not combine these facts. You have sources that credit web 2.0 for the expansion of the internet. The article already has sources regarding the internet and globalisation. Add the former, but do not attempt to combine it with the latter. And link Web 2.0 in plain sight, so that is clear to the reader what is being said. [[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] ^{[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]} 05:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

== Very long ==

216, please review [[NPOV]] policy, rewrite, and put back in. Thanks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]

----

Just being the antagonist to a superpower does not make Iraq a super power itself...

----

If we were basing things on facts rather than a biased POV we would have it, "George W. Bush, U.S. dictator." I am not convinced that we should have it Sadaam Hussein, Iraqi dictator, but not "George W. Bush," dictator of the USA. (Although I personally believe Hussein is a dictator, is this exactly NPOV? Should be have his official title instead?) --[[User:141.219.41.163|141.219.41.163]] 20:22 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

This article is [[Wikipedia:Article size|too long]] to read and navigate comfortably. When the tag was added, its [[Wikipedia:SIZERULE|readable prose size]] was 14,383 words. Consider [[Wikipedia:Splitting|splitting]] content into sub-article or [[Wikipedia:Summary style|condensing]] it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as [[attention span]], readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections or mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are [[Wikipedia:SPLIT|split]] into two or more smaller articles.{{pb}}

:Give me a break. Bush is not a dictator and it is stupid and idiotic to say otherwise. He was elected per the guidelines set out in a constitution, will leave when his term is up and does not in any way has absolute power in the United States. Hardly a dictator. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" style="background:none;"

|-

! Word count

! scope="col" | What to do

|-

| >&nbsp;15,000&nbsp;words || Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.

|-

|style="background: #ffffcc; text-align:center;"|'''this article{{hr}} 14,383 words''' ||style="background: #ffffcc;"|Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed

|-

| > 9,000 words || Probably should be divided or trimmed.

|}

—[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 17:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)—

:@[[User:Isaidnoway|Isaidnoway]] Agreed. I would urge editors to stop simply adding "me too" lists that add nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic, and simply make an over long article even longer. This article does not need further examples of films, tv shows, bands, etc, etc. The article is suposed to be an ''overview''. Unless you are adding something completely uncovered in the article, of notable significance to the decade, don't add it. Edits need to be focused on ''condensing'', not futily attempting to list everything that ever made an appearance in the 2000s. [[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] ^{[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]} 14:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense, 141. Even those of us who dislike the man don't think of him as a dictator. -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==

Dear Mav and Zoe--You guys need to do some homework. Do yourselves a favor and CAREFULLY READ the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and then the Patriot Act. Make note of how the first two documents just don't jive with the last one. LISTEN to "Democracy Now" (or read the website, democracynow.org) every day for ONLY one full week. CHECK OUT the very reputable moveon.org site for a week. In other words, give yourselves one week of something besides the mainstream media and you just might get a clue. ps mav--Actually, George did NOT really win the election. Check out the Associated Press findings from their voter recount of the entire state of Florida.--TK

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

* [[commons:File:Gbasp nes collection.jpg|Gbasp nes collection.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2025-08-20T00:06:29.079387 | Gbasp nes collection.jpg -->

==Sports figures==

Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gbasp nes collection.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 00:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I removed [[Landon Donovan]] from the list of sporting figures, as he is not considered to be one of the decade's greatest, most influential or most famous soccer players by any objective criterion. Methinks he is a hangover from the "all sports figures are American" days of the list. --[[User:Lancevortex|Lancevortex]] 09:54, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Are the following well known outside the USA and Canada:

* Barry Bonds (U.S. baseball player)

* Martin Brodeur (Canadian ice hockey player)

* Vince Carter (U.S. basketball player)

* LeBron James (U.S. basketball player)

* Derek Jeter (U.S. baseball player)

* Ray Lewis (U.S. American football player)

* Donovan McNabb (U.S. American football player)

* Randy Moss (U.S. American football player)

* Alex Rodriguez (U.S. baseball player)

* Martin St. Louis (Canadian ice hockey player)

* Michael Vick (U.S. American football player)

? If they are not, should they remain in this list? -- [[User:Jeandré|Jeandré]], 2004-08-20t20:03z

:: Actually [[Landon Donovan]] was the only US soccer played i know.... (as well as [[Mia Hamm]])..

the sportmen in that list are not well know outside the US, they should probably be deleted... - --[[User:Cyprus2k1|Cyprus2k1]] 06:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::: In my opinion, the fact that they may not be well-known outside the US/Canada doesn't mean that they should be deleted. However, I think that these lists should only include sportspeople who are considered the greatest in their field during the decade in question. From the list above, this certainly includes Barry Bonds, who is indeed one of the greatest baseball players of all time, and probably Derek Jeter, who has been a mainstay of one of the most successful baseball teams of all time. The others I am not familiar enough with to judge -- that probably needs to be left to a North American Wikipedian!

::: With regard to Landon Donovan, I don't think it matters whether anyone's heard of him -- he is not one of the best footballers (worldwide) of the 2000s, and so shouldn't be on this page. --[[User:Lancevortex|Lancevortex]] 09:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::: i assume [[Mia Hamm]] should be in the list? (one of the best in female soccer)

::: ok, so, include Barry Bonds and Derek Jeter.. what about the rest? (asking opinion of those who know about ice hockey,etc..) - --[[User:Cyprus2k1|Cyprus2k1]] 10:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:::: Famous outside the US? Well, I know who Barry Bonds is, and I've vaguely heard some of the names in passing. US sports just don't appear on the radar in the UK anymore. I'd say just list the truly great, and if people would question about whether they really are great (or seriously worldwide famous), then perhaps shouldn't be on the list. [[User:Average Earthman|Average Earthman]] 14:54, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:I read an article on BBC News that Vick has had three injury-shortened seasons in the NFL, and is short on winning - now I admittedly know very little about US sports, but that certainly doesn't look like a notable record as yet. I'd say if he wants to be a notable Quarterback, he'll have to at least play in the Superbowl. [[User:Average Earthman|Average Earthman]] 11:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:: I just remembered - US sports like handing out titles such as 'League MVP'. If anyone of these players listed doesn't have at least one such title, where one is given, then I'd say that suggests they haven't made the required very high grade yet. 10:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::: Sounds reasonable, although I don't think it would be fair, for example, to insist that a football (socccer) player should only be on this list if they have won a World footballer of the year award, and other sports probably don't have awards of a similar nature. Also, many great players will never win an award for best player in any one year, but are great because of consistent high standards of performance over several years. As well as that, pure sporting achievement is probably not the only criterion by which we should judge whether a player is worthy of appearing on a decade list. David Beckham, for example, is probably not even in the World's top 10 footballers, but his fame exceeds that of any other player and therefore belongs here. Basically I think it's tough to come up with objective criteria! My opinion though, is that whatever the criteria are, they should be strict, so we don't have a list like the music one where people just add their favourite artist regardless of whether they'll be forgotten in five years time. My guess is that you are in agreement with that, Average Earthman! --[[User:Lancevortex|Lancevortex]] 08:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

==Decade name==

The list item about the "Twenty Hundreds", followed by a ramble about how this is wonderfully simple and consistent that didn't flow with the rest of the text and also made no sense, was stuck in by an anon long ago. I checked Google, and it seems that people really have used "Twenty Hundreds" to mean the decade and not the century (this baffles me), and it's used much more than "the Nillies", so I guess it should stay in the list. [[User:Rspeer|RSpeer]] 13:30, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

: One name I've seen and like but the simple but of explanatory text the "decade 2000". I've seen it a few times now, and it's just self explanatory. People know instantly that you are refering to a decade and which decade. It's not really a "name" per se, but in most usage it works. Now when I see the text "the '00s", I usually say it aloud as the "decade [of] 2000" just because it's clear. --[[User:Sketchee|Sketchee]] 10:00, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

== Music ==

OK, I'm a thirtysomething and living in Europe, so I'll accept there will have been plenty of influential, highly popular acts I simply haven't heard of, but I do get a little suspicious about the importance of some of the entries if both links are red - are all of these artists and albums really important, or have some fans been overinflating the importance of their personal favourites? [[User:Average Earthman|Average Earthman]] 14:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

: Would definitely agree with you, AE. After all, it's not as if there aren't plenty of other Wikipedia articles where people can list bands. Perhaps in 2015, with the benefit of hindsight, we can drastically prune this list! --[[User:Lancevortex|Lancevortex]] 09:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== World leaders ==

Leader in Nazi Germany meant the combind post of [[President of Germany]] and [[Chancellor of Germany]]. For clarity it would be much better if this list was broken into two "Heads of Government" and "Heads of State". Besides "World leaders" are often neither head of government of state, in their 15 minutes of fame.

== Millennium ==

In the [[millennium]] article, it says "the first decade of the 2000s" with 2000s being a link here. Any comments on this?? [[User:66.245.126.251|66.245.126.251]] 16:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Years in the future ==

Most of the 2000s (decade) lies in the future. So I think this article belongs to that above-named category. [[User:Brianjd|Brianjd]] 06:57, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

:I disagree. The category should only go on articles on years or groups of years that are entirely in the future; the 2000s may ''contain'' future years, but they are not themselves entirely future years. The 2000s, 21st century and 3rd millennium are not the future, they are the present, and parts of their contents are the past, so adding this category to any of the three is misleading. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 02:39, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)