Talk:two-thousandsies

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
The decade that began with the year 2000. I don't see anything on Google Books or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Rachel Maddow uses it all the time. The 2nd quote is from last night:  04/17/2014, 1st story, 1m 17s – 1m 20s.
 * Second source: Federico Moramarco (2010) The City of Eden: Poems from a Life Paperback. The last section is called "The Two Thousandsies".  Reviewed here.
 * kwami (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe we shouldn't include quotations as example sentences without attribution.... Anyway, that book gives us one durably archived citation. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know why it would be called that. I would just call it the "two-thousands". --WikiTiki89 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * But is the 2000's the decade or the millennium? The obsolete term "noughties" similarly disambiguated the 1900's as the decade 1900–1910 from the 1900's as the 20th century.  kwami (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that. I always called that decade the "nineteen-hundreds" as well. --WikiTiki89 23:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You're expecting usage to make sense? It looks to me like a deliberately silly attempt to make the name of the last decade sound like those of the previous decades. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you hit the spot just right there with "silly". --WikiTiki89 23:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Found three other, independent uses on the net. Put them in the citations tab. kwami (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like none of those three are durably archived. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Our guideline recommends using web sources: "Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google", etc. How is something archived by Google "durable", but something archived by WaybackMachine is not?  What are our criteria?  We could archive a few with WebCite.  kwami (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We had a discussion about this not too long ago (see here). It is possible for a website to opt out of Wayback Machine and have all of its archives deleted. --WikiTiki89 00:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * But that's not a problem with WebCite. kwami (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for a discussion about changing our policy. We are not WebCite, and when and if we start allowing citations from the web, we will most likely also have to increase our web citation threshold for inclusion. --WikiTiki89 01:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A dozen citations is certainly an increase. kwami (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about a dozen? Anyway, as of now web citations are not allowed at all. --WikiTiki89 04:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You said "we will most likely also have to increase our web-citation threshold for inclusion", as if that were an objection. kwami (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's when and if we start allowing them. So it's irrelevant. --WikiTiki89 05:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hit at Google Groups:
 * Back in the early two-thousandsies I was briefly obsessed with the idea of using license plate numbers as messaging addresses. (2012-1-10)|sort:relevance|spell:false/buffalo-opencoffee-club/QgMIvoX16vQ/gEV3xgAiCrEJ


 * That's not Usenet. --WikiTiki89 05:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Google says it's an archive of Usenet postings. kwami (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where? — Keφr 06:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Google Groups is a discussion forum thing that also serves as an archive of Usenet. Not everything in Google Groups is Usenet. I'm not an expert on Usenet, but I do know that Usenet group identifiers generally look something like "alt.language.latin", while that quote is in a group called "Buffalo OpenCoffee Club". --WikiTiki89 06:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't used usenet in ages, and my accounts have all expired. I'd have to reinstall the software just to scan it.  kwami (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Failed. There are lots of uses, but only the two in the entry (which I moved to Citations:two-thousandsies) were durably archived. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October 2021
Are there three durably archived citations? I added one from The Philadelphia Inquirer. See previous RFV. J3133 (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You should not have recreated this entry as it failed and you added no new citations. J3133 (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * There are multiple durably archived citations. kwami (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See Talk:two-thousandsies: other users disagree obviously, as it failed. J3133 (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These users are Mx. Granger, Wikitiki89, and Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV. J3133 (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * We have three print attestations: 2 newspapers and a book of poetry. Or does print not count as "durable"? kwami (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, I added one of the newspaper cites; however, you should not recreate failed entries without any new citations—those are speedily deleted, if you are unaware. J3133 (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see several dead links, several bits of non-durable attestation and one cite, possibly from a print newspaper, regrettably behind a paywall . One can infer that the poetry cite is in print, but there is no link and a search gets us to Amazon, which has a customer review that refers to a section of a book of poetry that has two-thousandsies as its title. This needs more durable attestation, preferrably with visible context. At present, I can only confirm one. DCDuring (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This looks cited to me. Kiwima (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)