Talk:AD 1

One might expect this to be an article about the number 1, but it's not. I suppose it's far too late to rename all the year pages to forms like 1 AD or 1 CE.

Or "Year X", although that might make it harder to link to years inside articles. --AV

It would probably be easier to just add a link to number 1 at the top of the Year 1 AD page.

I strongly agree, year names under 50, at least, should be in the format 1 AD or 1 CE. Nobody would ever say something happened in 1. You have to say 1 AD for clarity. --Sonjaaa 12:52, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Before you go changing things, you might like to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and the long debates on this subject in the multiple archives of the talk page in which the current convention for article names was agreed. Gdr 01:06, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

---

Dionysius decided that Jesus was born on xxv. December AUC DCCVIII. This is December 25, 1 BC in modern terminology. He was not born in 1 (of course), nor is this Dionysius' traditional date -- although I suppose that Dionysius would have calculated that Jesus was circumcised in 1 (barely, on January 1). -- Toby 06:19 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

DCCLIII, surely?

---

There is indeed no "year 0" in the Gregorian calendar, but there is a page called 0 (year), where this is explained. Why not link to it?? Aleph4 13:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The last thing you want to do is list it under "years" if it is not. - Tεxτurε 17:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)