Jump to content

Talk:Year 2000 problem/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Documented Errors - On 31 December 2000 or 1 January 2001

I would like to add this subsection, but my change was reverted. The BBC news story is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1101917.stm. These were examples due to mis-handling of the 2000 leap year, as 2000 was 366 days long not 365, so problems occurred on last day of 2000 or first day of 2001 (I assume this was becuase two systems were involved, one with the bug and one without). During testing for Y2K setting clocks to 31 December 2000 and to 1 January 2001 were considered as requirements, due to liklihood of problems with those two dates. As per FAQ in the BSI spec (reference 1):

Q13 What about "critical dates" other than 1 January 2000 which are related to the Year 2000 problem? A13 ... Another date which may cause problems is 31st December 2000 because it is the 366th day of the year, and in previous leap years some systems have failed when this date was encountered.

Yes it was really a leap year problem, but it was included by BSI as part of Y2K, so any documented errors were scenarios that should have been checked as part of any Y2K conformance testing. John a s (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The year 2000 problem was about the change of date from December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000. The leap year bug is dealt with in another location and the BBC is simply guilty of conflating the issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
No single authority was in charge of the year 2000 problem, so there is no authoritative definition of what is or is not included. "The year 2000 problem was about the change of date from December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000" is just the opinion of one Wikipedia editor. Having been involved in screening programs for year 2000 problems, I know from personal experience that finding authoritative statements about whether 2000 was or was not a leap year was difficult, and this knowledge was a prerequisite for screening programs. Our department finally found a copy of the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 and decided that was authoritative enough. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
And the "critical dates" issue is just the opinion of one BBC editor. Check the lede of this article. It states what the purpose of this article is. Then check leap year#Algorithm to see if the problem you're describing doesn't belong there instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The leap year was a problem, as simple-minded programmers had it wrong sometimes. But there was never any confusion about the rules; the scheme from 1750 was well known, not disputed, and mostly correctly implemented, except by programmers who didn't care about the long run, which came up in the same year as the digit rollover problem. I can't believe that "finding authoritative statements" was the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
There was a problem finding authoritative statements. The Internet hadn't progressed very far in terms of distinguishing good sites from bad sites. Governments were largely absent from the Internet. Some programmers had university libraries at hand, but many didn't. And for US programmers, there was this problem: "[The Gregorian Calendar] is the official calendar of the United Kingdom, but not of the United States (which has no official calendar)." (Richards 2013, p. 585) It's tough to find a law that doesn't exist, especially when you don't know it doesn't exist. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about laws, but the idea that the US might use a calendar different from what Europe used seems like a strawman. As one born on 29 Feb, I had nearly a half century to get used to the idea that 2000 was special in that I would not miss a birthday the way some did in 1900. This was well known; I used it when I wrote a day-of-week calculating program in 1971 (in Fortran). Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Here are a ton of pre-2000 books about it, including many of the books that were being pitched to you for the purpose of working on the Y2K problem; you wouldn't need the internet to find these (though there was a very well developed book market on the internet, including abebooks.com, by 1996). Dicklyon (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I hope you'll understand that I didn't keep a record of all the sources that had it wrong, and don't remember which ones had it it wrong. But considering the number of seemingly reliable corporations like IBM, Lotus, and Microsoft that had some incorrect leap year handling, you can strike all the computer-oriented books off your list, because the computer industry was not perceived as reliable. With many of the remaining books, it isn't obvious from the titles or on-line descriptions that they addressed the Y2K problem.
Of course, if one could find a European law (which was reliably translated into English, if necessary) that described the leap year calculation, it would be safe to assume the US would do the same. But it's a lot easier for a person in the US, not near a major library, to research US law than foreign law. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I know Excel had it wrong, but that was a bug, or laziness, or overight, not due to any source being wrong. Can you actually find a single example of a source that had it wrong (with the aid of the modern internet), or are you just making that up? Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
A quick search reveals this Infoworld page which suggest there is a year 4882 problem, when a second leap day will be required. It's written as if that is an actual law. Since there is no such law, the entire article looses all its credibility. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It looks to me more like it's written as a joke that someone slipped by their editor! Hilarious, though. Dicklyon (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
But that's about leap years, not about the rolling over of dates due to the way dates were stored. Please stop attempting to conflate the two issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The year 2000 problem involves not only the most widespread aspect of the problem, dates being stored with only two digits, but also the correction and testing process. Anybody with more than two brain cells would require testing to see if each purported correction handled leap years correctly. So leap year processing is part of the year 2000 problem. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It involved the the transition from December 31, 1999, to January 1, 2000. That entry only mentions "In addition, some computer software did not take into account that the year 2000 was a leap year" as a single sentence, not making it the focus of the problem. [1], [2], [3], [4] and other do not even mention the leap year issue. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems odd that we are now in 2015 and are debating what was or was not the year 2000 problem, but hey, happy new year to you! The article introduction includes the BSI definition of the year 2000 problem, which includes as rule 4 "Year 2000 must be recognized as a leap year". As this appears to be the issue with systems mentioned in the 5 January 2001 BBC news story, 31 December 2000 and 1 January 2001 issues should be included. One of the agreed authoritative sources for Y2K stories was the BBC, I think the consensus would be that this is enough justification to include it. BTW the only reason I came to this WP article was there was a 15-year anniversary piece yesterday: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30576670.John a s (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems odd that we are now in 2015 and are debating what was or was not the year 2000 problem Not odd at all. The media was totally out-of-control in 1999 (fear sells... "if it bleeds it leads") & people expected the world to end. When bodies did not fall from the skies—as predicted or implied by outrageously inflated media "reports"—people lept to the conclusion that the entire Y2K issue was a hoax. File under LESSONS NOT LEARNED. That nothing bad happened because a lot of dedicated people worked really, really hard, was simply too preposterous a conclusion for people to grasp. Then post 2000-01-01 there was a legal gag order at companies so there was no opportunity for hard working project teams to stand up & take a much deserved bow. Bottom line? Folks who should have learned how complex information systems are & how totally dependant society is on these systems, learned nothing. Management thinks IT ripped them off by crying wolf. DEddy (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The BBC news item doesn't make much sense. It clearly says that tills thought it was 1901, not 2001, which is a millennium bug problem, not a leap year algorithm problem. Also, trains were not programmed not to run on 1 January, so whether the software thought it was 31 December or 1 January should not have made them stop. Why should we assume the railway used two systems to keep track of dates?
This an area in which people are generally clueless. Ask people at random if 2100 will be a leap year and you might be surprised at the answers you get. Even the simple Julian rule (one leap year every four years) is misquoted: [5], the edit is reverted [6] and the first editor puts the error back in! [7].
Looking at contemporary discussions, a lot of programmers were misinformed, but eventually realised that they needed to look no further than the Royal Greenwich Observatory (or the United States Naval Observatory) for authoritative information. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  • E. G. Richards, "Calendars", in eds. S. E. Urban and P. K. Seidelmann Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac 3rd ed. (Mill Valley CA: University Science Books, 2013).

Credibility

The guy writes as though he knows—experienced—what he's talking about. Given that Y2K is considered a hoax, why not include a well expressed blog? Or are blogs off limits for Wikipedia? DEddy (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:RS, particularly WP:USERGENERATED. If you can show that the author of the blog has written a book on the subject or at least on the subject of software development, then it could be included. Many well-known technology authors have blogs of this sort. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia's stance, but it's frustrating in this case. I wrote the blog and I certainly do know what I'm talking about. During Y2K I was involved in high level planning and also dealing with the low level bits & bytes. I haven't seen a retrospective book with anything worthwhile to say about Y2K. The people who were there and understood the issue moved on to do other things, as I did. Journalists and academics who were appallingly ignorant then moved in to clean up. If a good book about Y2K is ever written then the author would have to speak to people like me, and use sources like the documents that I've retained. The Wall Street Journal article "hoax of the century", which is apparently a credible source, is laughable nonsense. It amazes me how confident people can be that they are right and I am wrong on this subject when they have no relevant experience. I've never seen anything credible from one of the sceptics, but Y2K has become one of these topics where people know they can sound off without getting challenged, except by people like me. We're just the guys who did the job. We're not "credible". I restrained myself in the blog I wrote. Comments added to the blog from people I know who are very prominent and credible in the software testing profession were blunter. One of those was a Y2K manager for Nokia. Another worked at a major North American utility company. Like me, they know what the consequences would have been if we'd not tackled the problem. Jean de Luz (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's not about you being a Y2K expert, that's not what the guideline states. You're not a recognized computer development or technology expert. Journalists are considered reliable sources since their information is fact-checked. Similarly tech authors go through the same vetting. Bloggers, traditionally, do not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Journalists are considered reliable sources since their information is fact-checked. Ummmm... Errrrr.... Ahhhhh... Walter "fact checking for Journalists" is so 20th century. Maybe the word hasn't filtered through to the powers-that-be at Wikipedia, but this thing called the Internet has taken a huge chunk out of the newspaper publishing revenue model. Fact checkers were an early casualty.
Two personal Y2K experiences: around 1995 or so the scales fell from my eyes & I finally learned that just because someone could write well about a (technical) topic I was interested in, said absolutely nothing about their knowledge of the topic. They knew how to interview someone & write well. Second: when I was interviewed by the WSJ in August 1995, the piece almost didn't run since the journalist couldn't track my boss vacationing (no cell phone) in the UK for fact checking. Twenty years on, fact-checking in journalism—particularly on technical topics—is largely a fond memory. Personally I consider many allegedly technical journalists as seriously ill informed.
Look at the announcements in WSJ/NYTimes about the new z13 mainframe. Is that journalism or regurgitating a company press release? DEddy (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I never said that the rules for RS are sufficiently modern, I was simply explaining it. I don't care how they create their content only that if Wikipedia is sued for publishing something that we can point to the source of that information.
Thanks for sharing. I don't actually care about your personal Y2K experiences and I'll do you the favour of not sharing mine with you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your being so dismissive of my professional sharing. You've missed something here... since there are (to the best of my knowledge) NO reliable professional recountings of Y2K all we have are our "personal" experiences. If you know of reliable sources for Y2K after action reviews, please list them. I'm currently unaware of any such published resources. DEddy (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I offended you. You missed the fact that I worked through the Y2K repairs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:V states in part "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Since the subject matter is computers, if the blog author had also published work in recognized computer magazines or journals, his comments could remain in Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
if the blog author had also published work in recognized computer magazines or journals, his comments could remain in Wikipedia This is too good to be true. The medium in which Wikipedia is "published" (am I allowed to say Wikipedia is a form of publishing?) is not considered to be a reliable form of publishing. Words fail me.
Let me get this straight. A technical journalist for the NYTimes is considered a "reliable source" and someone with 30 years hands-on technical experience with thoughts on a blog is NOT reliable? Do I have that right?
What about the 110 Y2K essays (I don't believe "blog" was a word in 1999) I wrote for the Westergaard site (there were at least a dozen or more contributors like myself)? The site is long since gone to the bit bucket in the sky. I think some of the site is in the Wayback Machine. Are those essays "reliable" or "hearsay?" I wrote them. They were "published" on the now defunct Westergaard site (wwww.y2ktimebomb.com), & I have the essays. DEddy (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
If by medium you mean paper vs. Internet, Internet sources are just as acceptable as paper sources. If by medium you mean sources that exercise control over what is published vs. blogs (or vanity presses) that allow paying customers to publish whatever they feel like, you're right, those are not acceptable. You are not a Y2K expert, you're a userid on the Internet that cannot vetted. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had plenty of articles published in IT magazines and journals. Maybe I should get one of them to take the blog article. I know journalists are supposed to have their articles fact checked, but today I've been checking a couple of technology articles in the Mail on Sunday in which the journalist has distorted the figures by a factor of at least 10. C'est la vie. Jean de Luz (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Jean de Luz I haven't seen a retrospective book with anything worthwhile to say about Y2K. I would agree. Here's an interesting sample... http://www.computersincrisis.com I wrote one final Y2K piece in 2000 for some sort of operations magazine. It was a membership magazine (members are told/warned they may be called upon to be interviewed) so as the "journalist" they gave me a list of people, titles, phone numbers & their companies. Objective of the piece was to give folks a richly deserved "atta boy!" for a job well done. I quickly slammed into a stone wall. Companies were under a gag order from the legal department to NOT talk to the press. Companies were fearful of sounding the all-clear too soon. Individuals could not be quoted & requests for quotes would not be considered by legal departments. I have hopes the working papers from that assignment will surface someday from my archives, but I'm not holding my breath.

It's a pity... silence plays to paranoia. It's my firm belief that most people believe that since bodies didn't fall from the sky at the stroke of midnight—as predicted by those reliable sources in journalism—the whole thing was a hoax. The fact that a lot of people worked really hard to avoid slamming into the iceberg (Yes I had a Titanic Y2K essay...) simply cannot be considered. Bottom line? No lessons learned.

Here's a cheery thought... personally I believe the approaching Retirement Brain Drain—Baby Boomers who built the mainframe systems—has the potential of being a significant challenge. For Y2K the Subject Matter Experts were around & eager to pitch in. Going forward those skill/knowledge will not be available. The mainframe systems are still here. I remember one of the standard "Y2K isn't an issue" excusses was that "We're going to replace that system real soon now." Color me skeptical. DEddy (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The "Opposing View" section

The section with the arguments against Y2K being a serious problem is poor. It cites two areas where Y2K was not a problem, but offers no opinion on those areas where it undoubtedly would have been a big problem. The "absence of Y2K problems occurring before 1 January 2000" is a fatuous point. I was a Y2K test manager at a large insurance company. We were fully aware that our drop dead date was in the autumn of 1998, when renewal notices for annual contracts extending beyond 31st December 1999 would first be processed. Nearly all of the effort at that company was during 1997 and 1998. 1999 was for final fine tuning. Other, similar companies were doing the same thing.

The argument that problems should have been fixed when they occurred might have applied to organisations with small and simple applications. Large insurance companies, most of whose applications are date related, could not have coped with the avalanche of problems bringing complex systems down. To be kind I'll say that was an ill-informed opinion. I pored over these applications in minute detail and know how they would have failed. I don't have much respect for the opinion of people who tell me I needn't have bothered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie Threepwood (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 January 2015

In particular I think the "hoax of the century" claim by the Wall Street Journal has undue prominence. It was written by a columnist, James Taranto, not a technology or business journalist. The link is broken and the article is no longer available online. Such extreme, hysterical claims should surely have a source available that we can go and check to see what evidence he has for his assertions. If it is merely Taranto's personal opinion then that is of no more significance than the views of the guy sitting next to me in the pub. Jean de Luz (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No-one has objected to, or passed any comment, on my criticism of the "opposing view" section. I will therefore update it to qualify the unsubstantiated claims. There are no links available to back up remarkable claims (ie that there would have only a few minor mistakes, and the ludicrous assertion that "fix on failure" would have been generally "efficient and cost-effective"). I will also remove the reference to the Wall Street Journal article, which is ill-informed polemic from a controversialist rather than a commentator. Jean de Luz (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Location of image

Apparently the metadata supports that it was taken at a school. I don't see that.

Date and time of data generation 12:09, 3 January 2000
Horizontal resolution 1 dpc
Vertical resolution 1 dpc
File change date and time 12:09, 3 January 2000
Y and C positioning Centered
Exif version 2.3
Date and time of digitizing 12:09, 3 January 2000
Color space Uncalibrated
North or south latitude North latitude
East or west longitude West longitude
Altitude 20 meters above sea level
Geodetic survey data used WGS-84
GPS date 3 January 2000

I checked it before the original revert and I have provided it here now. Feel free to point out what I'm missing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the software Walter Görlitz used does not display latitude and longitude, which is in fact embedded in this image: 47° 14' 53.1" North, 1° 32' 47.3" West. This corresponds to Nantes, France. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
And it corresponds to the auditorium of the named school in Nantes.... see also the link in WP: [13] BTW: it is bad practice to revert an edit with that had a reliable source without first waiting for the discussion. Schily (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the software I'm using is Wikicommons and the metadata it displays is shown above. Is this WP:OR or WP:CALC? I would argue it's a bit of both since the reader is required to download the image and open it in software that shows the full EXIF data, which is too much to expect for verification of this information. Once that is done, it is also required to use maping software capable of converting LatLong data and displaying a map. Not impossible, just a very high hurdle. BTW: it is bad practice to revert without starting a discussion, which is why @Schily: should have discussed before reverting. Agreed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry to see that you did never try to do the easiest thing: open the Wikimedia page for that image by clicking on that image and have a look at the information about the meta data and the included link that I copied. In other words: there is no such hurdle.... I am however finally satisfied to see that you at least admit that your first revert was not OK already. Schily (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I see. You're confused. The GPS coordinates are listed at Wikicommons, not Wikimedia (what is that?) and you can click through to OpenStreeMap or Google Earth. The former shows École Centrale Audencia on the left side and one must zoom-in to see École Centrale de Nantes. Google Earth does not list the school name at all. Time for RfC or are you going to admit you're wrong and revert? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If you again claim your previous ideas, you seem to be confused. If you are able to read the OpenStreetMap, you should understand that this is a location inside the auditorium of École Centrale de Nantes. You do not need to zoom in on OpenStreetMap to see the name and OpenStreetMap even mentions this as "building L" of the school. Goole of course lists the school name, see [14] for an optical verification that this is the "audimax" building of the school. So why are you now trying to go back to your wrong claims before our verification? Schily (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
What? That makes no sense. At my screen resolution, I do need to zoom in. And appealing to Google maps is not an option since it's not available from Wikicommons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
??? You have been talking about Google Earth that is not available as there is no implementation for free OS, so I showed you another Google service that is available for free OS. And BTW: If you decide to use a very low screen resolution, you should not make others responsible for your decision. Schily (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been talking about Google Earth because that is one of the links there. You showed a service not available from Wikicommons. And BTW What screen resolutions do you think I used to look at OpenStreetMap? What makes you think that they are low screen resolutions? For your information, I used if you think that 1600 X 1200, 1024 x 768 and the three other resolutions. However, it's not the resolutions that were the issue, but the zoom level. I'm sorry I didn't make the clear the first time. Oh, I did write "one must zoom-in to see École Centrale de Nantes". You just missed it. Sorry you missed it. Perhaps you should stop while you're ahead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Initially, I intentionally send the OpenStreetMap link because it is included in the page and because it works even on a free OS. I added Google later because you claimed that Goole does not include a name at all. I am sorry to see after checking again that I seem to miss that I needed to zoom in initially to make the name readable, but this is something I usually do in order to check for everyhing that might be in the maps. Schily (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Now that we have cleared that up and we understand that the hurdle is high, shall we remove or take to RfC? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I m not sure what you like to tell us here. Do you like to remove a statement from the article even though it has a reliable source? Schily (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It is not a clear source. That is what I have been saying. It is verifiable, but it takes too much effort and some special skills to verify. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
WP does not have a limit on the effort it takes to verify a source. WP not even requires the source to be available on-line. Schily (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the layout of the driveways and parking lots, it appears from the OpenStreetMap view that the building that corresponds to the GPS coordinates is on the campus of the École Centrale de Nantes. I believe the metadata supports the claim that the picture was taken at the École Centrale de Nantes. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Your belief system is not the issue. The question is whether a reader, unfamiliar with the facilities, could come to the same conclusion. They cannot do so easily. That is why I propose the return to the original wording. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the photo in the lede section contain the school's name

Bikesheddish note irrelevant to the article, as consensus confirms. Esquivalience (alt) (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The image contains GPS coordinates. Those coordinates relate to a school. However, is the hurdle of investigation too high? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The location is stated in the image. As for hurdle of investigation, Wikipedia allows citation to sources that are stored in archives; compared to accessing that sort of publication, verifying the location of the image is trivial. Also, the original research policy says that images are not considered original research unless they introduce a new idea or argument. It is well-known that many devices exhibited the kind of fault illustrated in the image, so there is no new idea or argument. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification. The GPS co-ordinates, not the location, are stored in the image. It requires some additional work to determine the location's name, which may or may not change over time. Not completely trivial, but not an insurmountable hurdle either. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (response invited by the rfc bot) Regardless GPS coordinates, the name of the school is in the sign itself, so its repetition is redundancy and hence clutter, hence this RFC is waste of time. As for using coordinates from the image to support some claim, this a broad issue, not to be discussed in this talk page only. If someone thinks it is a critical issue, the proper venue is WP:NOR message board. As for my personal opinion, this image might as well be a prank against the school: photoshop. Therefore on the second thought I would remove the image as original research coming from a non-reliable source: a wikipedian. It is not simply a picture to illustrate the content in an article about the depicted object; instead, it is an image which is a statement about the school (which is not the subject of the article), namely, this school had sloppy IT department. And the latter statement as such is inadmissible without reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, an image which looks like an instance of year 2000 bug is appropriate, whether it is authentic or not. The name of the school in image description serves no purpose for this article, so it should be replaced with shorter and more relevant "An affected sign displaying the year 1900 instead of 2000". “WarKosign” 05:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with WarKosign. This is a total non-issue. It's pretty obvious where this photo was taken - the sign says "Welcome to the Ecole Centrale de Nantes", it's hardly OR to say where it was taken - but that's completely irrelevant anyway, since the location is actually an irrelevant distraction in the comment anyway. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 12:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Only here for the RFC. This is a storm in a legalistic teacup. The picture is an illustration -- both literally and metaphorically -- not a factual claim that needs citation. Arguing that it could have been photoshopped is totally beside the point unless someone somewhere is arguing that no such event ever occurred. The question of the GPS is soooo irrelevant that it hurts. Leave the illustration where it does the most good and get on with life for heaven's sake! JonRichfield (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Support - nothing to say here that hasn't been said already, so I'll just say that my opinion here is the same. KieranTribe (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What a silly waste of time. The image should stay. The caption might read, "On January 3, 2000, an electronic sign incorrectly displays the year as 1900". EEng (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Year 2000 problem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Eliminate POV bias from discussion of Cost

Currently the Opposing view section of this article concludes with a rebuttal of the opposing view.

The section concludes: "However, this can be countered with the observation that large companies had significant problems requiring action, that Y2K programmes were fully aware of the variable timescale, and that they were working to a series of earlier target dates, rather than a single fixed target of 31 December 1999.[46]"

I propose that this remark be deleted as the point is already made in the Supporting view section where the same reference is cited. Alternately, the remark could be shifted to that section. The task of the Wikipedia article is not to come down on one side or the other (ie. make POV rebuttals that push the reader toward the acceptance of a particular position). Asd154 (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Year 2038 problem

This section states that the problem does not exist for systems with a 64bit implementation. That is technically untrue. The problem is merely delayed about 292 billion yeas, as mentioned on the 2038 problem's own page. Should this be clarified here? 220.221.138.83 (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you should mention it here, however, if we're still around 292 billion years from now, I think we'll have fixed 64-bit integer implementation of dates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Nah. The 2038 article goes into that sufficiently; I just added one word ("realistically") to make the sentence more absolutely correct. But please, if anyone is hiring programmers to fix the Year 292,277,026,596 problem, please let me know; I'm available for long-term contract work. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Full stops in references.

I'm ambivalent about this, whether there should be punctuation in references or not - is it covered under WP:MOS at all?

However, a pet hate of mine is not so much editwarring, but ignoring WP:BRD and insisting that the "new" and disputed version stays in place while it is discussed. That is not collaborative. The original version prior to the "B" part stays in situ, and merits (or not) of the different version are discussed then changes are made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

But surely you would agree that a sentence must begin with a capital letter. You changed

... problem. (For the detail, click on the image to see its description)

to

... problem. (for the detail, click on the image to see its description)

In the edit you're referring to, the change to "problem. (For the detail" is a straight forward typo, and I shall correct it as soon as I finish here. It is not the main thrust of disagreement between you and Walter over how references should be punctuated - nor do you address that issue above. On this I have no experience, but as I stressed - Bold, Revert & Discuss, and that's what needs to happen, rather than flip-flopping between versions, and more irritatingly, insisting on the new version taking precedence before it has been agreed upon. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
As for the caption, per MOS:CAPTION, the punctuation is not needed. In 2016, does anyone need to be told that if they click on an image that they will be taken to a link with further details? I simply removed both. If it should be added back, the parenthetical phrase should be inserted before the period. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair point, and I wondered myself if it was necessary, but I did expect this discussion to be about the initial series of reverts - ie punctuation within references, not punctuation within captions. Neither of you seem to be bothered about that anymore? Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
MOS:REF addresses that and the {{cite web}} takes care of the formatting, so convert to using the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources, to which CITE is a redirect, only says "citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas." The citation marker is within the body of the document. "Citing sources" does not address how the reference should be written. That is up to the citation style adopted for the individual article, as explained at WP:Citing sources#Variation in citation methods.

However, this article has no established citation style. The first citation was added in a May 2004 edit. That style sort of resembles APA style but if you look at the example for a magazine reference on page 200 of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.) you see it isn't correct for that style. So before we can answer what punctuation within a reference is, we have to decide what the citation style will be for this article. My suggestion: let whoever volunteers to go through the article and make all the citations consistent decide what the style will be. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Religious Response

Walter - I'd argue for keeping the paragraph on religious response. Y2K as a greater social event had a huge religious component. Seems that selling the End Times, Apocalypse, etc. is a well established market with a 3,000 year head start on computers. Fear mongers took full advantage or exploiting people who had no idea what technogy is. I'm under the impression that since bodies did not fall from the sky at the stoke of midnight (as predicted by big slice of the media), plenty of people believe Y2K as a technical/project management issue was a hoax. DEddy (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoGNiHV09BU This NYTimes video pretty much covers the bases... Scary Gary North, Jerry Falwell, John Koskinen, Peter de Jager, Paul Saffo & more. Well worth 10 minutes of anyone's time. DEddy (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
There were others who saw it as potentially catastrophic if not apocalyptic. To only single out one group is WP:UNDUE and unbalanced at best and biased at worst.
So what's the motive behind singling out one group for criticism? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Because they're probably the single most dangerous, with the most believers? The point is a huge slice of people had at the time & continue to have now no idea what Y2K was. The media clearly didn't help since selling Apocalypse sells papers. Both of these groups are likely to repeat the same sort of incindiary propaganda the next time around. I'd be more than happy to possibly change the paragraph title & include your links. DEddy (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
But it's supposition to state that they are the most dangerous and have the most adherents. Most Christian groups did not fall for Y2K hysteria. It was a few fringe groups, just as in normal society.
I fully agree that a slice had fallen into an idea that Y2K was catastrophic. I fully agree that many people did not really comprehend the actual nature of Y2K. To state it was a "huge slice" is, once again, supposition and unsupported. To generalize that "media clearly didn't help" is once again false as many media outlets clearly explained what it involved.
Many of my links are not reliable sources and could not be used. And while I appreciate the offer, I'm not convinced that you understand WP:NPOV sufficiently to write a paragraph that will be both factual and neutral, but feel free to give it a try. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
"not reliable sources"... That's one of the major points... there wasn't & isn't much relable information. Most organzations didn't & don't have a clear understanding of their software collection.
I'll pass. People will think what they want to about the Y2K effort.
My experience with the religious angle is seeing a university professor's WALL of End Times/Apocalyps books... 10' high x 15' wide. ALL about how the end is 'nigh... real soon now. Leaves a lasting impression.
I still give my little Y2K test. "... 96, 97, 98, 99... What's the next two digit number?" Vast majority fail. Guesses are: "00?" "100?" One wise acre friend (a SysProg, naturally) offers "0A" DEddy (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
A single university prof's wall is not a RS either. It could be an obsession for the individual. If you had one at every university, that would be a different matter, especially if someone decided to write about it.
Not sure what your test has to do with conspiracy theories around Y2K. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Just a comment on how difficult it is for majority of people to understand what the two digit year was. People have varied responses to things they don't understand. DEddy (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
You've completely missed the point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Walter. After several undo actions on your part with my additions I am somewhat perplexed. I feel you are displaying bias by attempting to protect the Christian movement from critical observation. My additions summarize widespread actions that occurred and were widely documented across media, involving widely respected Christian leaders. It is in keeping with the rest of the article, which summarizes the response from various sectors. The Christian sector/religious response is a valid addition to the article and should be recorded. Far from being isolated wingnuts (your word), my information, gathered from a number of sources, including respected journalists in respected journals, points out what was common across the Pentecostal and fundamentalist streams of Christianity at the time. You can hardly describe Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Gary North as fringe wingnuts - the reach of these men was into millions of people. This paragraph is not just about what some people did, regardless of how many, but is also about what the leaders within this significant stream of Christianity openly promoted at the time. I hope you can see the angle I am taking and reconsider. Do I have support from other editors here to restore my contribution? As a relatively inexperienced contributor I don't know where to take this to get it up again. If it needs further work with sounding more encyclopedic then so be it, I'll work on it, but let's make a start. Thanks, Myron 1.132.96.239 (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're perplexed. Did you bother to read the discussion above? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have undone the last edit and made significant changes and improvements which I believe go a long way towards addressing objections raised. Significantly, it has a new sub-heading to embrace the wider fringe movement where these more extreme behaviors were noted. I have endeavoured to reflect more than just the religious or Christian response and phrase it to cover the wider fringe movements responses, albeit with significant examples from the more extreme Christian elements which are noteworthy. Described in this way, notability guidelines within Wikipedia are clearly met. I have also worked to improve the tone of the language used to be somewhat more encyclopedic and less like a personal reflection. If it can be improved further this way that is most welcome. In keeping with the guidelines of Wikipedia I remind other editors of the following, as the tone and wording of some comments in this talk page and the action of a complete deletion of the whole original paragraph have in my opinion, been unacceptable when held up to this standard. This is also appropriate given that allegations of bias have been thrown into the comments. Follow the normal protocol: (found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution )

When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

It is worth reading the rest of these guidelines. 1.132.96.240 (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I can see you refuse to back down from unfairly focusing on a single group. Other editors will fix your poor edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
And for the record, they're not improvements and your characterization of your edits as such is laughable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Added again

It was added again without agreement, and there were problems, such as adding links to headings, which is against MOS:HEADING. Please gain agreement for the additions before adding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Date format & missing info

The statement regarding the internal date format of MMDDYY is a typically American introspection (nothing outside America is worth anything). In all of the thousands of programmes I wrote, not one had that format. I used the English format of DDMMYY.

A statement regarding the financial problem should be included.

Imagine the financial impact a change from the last day of 1999 (99) to the first day of 2000 (00) would have been? It would've been 98 years and 1 day of interest charged/given for all accounts, absolutely chaos. It didn't happen because the problem was solved beforehand by spending billions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomaus2 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Less-than-neutral tone

This whole page reads a lot like a History Channel "documentary" script. Especially that "Fringe Group Responses" section. predcon (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The "Fringe Group Responses" section is valid and well-referenced. It should stay and be enhanced with further references and details by interested editors. I support this section. 1.132.107.146 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Programming problem

Using 2 digits for years was a conscious decision. Bugs are unanticipated, unknown issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEddy (talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I can resolve this issue because I invented an unlimited period calendar which is started from 001 to infinite years. Daud886 (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Any interest in renaming this to Y2K?

I'm fairly certain this is the common name per sources. It was certainly the vernacular at the time. I haven't done any research into it, so I'm just asking informally.That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The article there was originally created as a redirect to this article. There was briefly an article there about a band, but that content is elsewhere. I would argue that the redirect there is enough, but you might have an argument based on WP:COMMONNAME. Both "Year 2000" and "Y2K" eclipse "Year 2000 problem": source. I can assume the former is a reference to the year rather than the computer problem based on the long tail at the outset. If you go case insensitive, it's more convincing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
It was a convenient short form back when everyone was talking about it, but now that it is seldom discussed, I think it would confuse people to call it Y2K. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible to change title to "Year 2000 (Y2K)" ? Would Wikipedia search find both 'Year 2000' and 'Y2K'? DEddy (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Y2K is already a redirect to this article. The disambiguation in the title—that's the part in parenthesis—is not needed since there is no other subject titled year 2000. Also, it's not about the year 2000, it's about the problem associated with storing the year "2000". I don't think a rename is needed. COMMONNAME again would be an appropriate read. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Decennium Bug

What proof (in terms of number and quality of sources) would be required in order to for my "Decennium Bug" edit ([15]) to be valid? Admittedly it may be tough for me to find those sources now, since many were paper-based (such as the one I included, which I'd be happy to send to you if required), but they are out there. The term is mentioned here so I'm pretty sure it isn't just something mentioned in one publication. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jameboy: I would say that the proof you need more than the 160 hits that Google shows. Compare that with 20,400 for "year 2000 bug" and 143,000 for "Y2K bug". I would show a ngram for it, but the terms are all too new. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

21 Jump Street

"An earlier reference to the term "Y2K problem" can be found in episode 2 of the TV series '21 Jump Street' in background car radio chatter at 7 minutes and 12 seconds. That episode was originally aired April 12, 1987."

Do you have a findable reference?

That got to a 2nd episode?

Would you care to sign your claim, please. I'm rather attached to the fame & fortune of having documentation for my claim. DEddy (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I reverted it. The episode is available on YouTube, and it does sound like the guy on the radio says "Y2K problem" if you're listening for that, but it probably just sounds like it while actually being something different. Without a source attesting to it or audio making it very clear (with context so that we know it's actually referring to the same phenomenon), we should probably keep it out. -- irn (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Martyn Thomas, Professor of IT, Gresham College, London

69.181.23.220 (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there a specific change you would like to see implemented? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Psion Organiser

Not sure about the criteria for inclusion in the documented examples, but this is going around quite a bit: https://twitter.com/basiccomic/status/1099332074983641094 Nemo 07:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The Y2K bug was that years were only held in a two-digit field so that it would be unclear what the century was. The Psion was displaying four digits. So unless we know that they were not actually storing the year internally as two digits and displaying four, we can't infer anything from it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Serious "mis-understandings"

If not mass hysteria, given that vast majority of people have only dimmest understanding of software, this NYTimes video—https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoGNiHV09BU—is good example of how off the mark explanations of the Y2K issue were.

Paul Saffo is excellent. DEddy (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

19xx v 20xx was NOT the main problem

At least 3 times this article states that computers stored the year as 2 digits. This is incorrect. The problem was that the majority of computers ran Windows which stored dates as an integer number of days since 1980 jan 1, and the integer size, and the routines for decyphering it, were not adequate. Souce: I was there Friendly Person (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The first issue is that although the internet was starting to become popular in the late 1990s, it didn't have the degree of pervasiveness as today. Microsoft Windows didn't have the degree of penetration into critical business systems, such as banking, insurance, and payroll, as today. And the first edition of Windows Server didn't exist. The days-since-1980 problem affected IBM PCs and compatibles, but other systems were more critical to the proper function of society, such as IBM System/390 and successor models. Many of these non-Microsoft systems did not have the particular problem you describe, although they might have had other similar problems that would show themselves in the first half of the 21st century.
The second issue is that your description isn't always correct, if our System time article is to be believed. That article indicates that when raising the interrupt INT 1Ah, AH=04h the response is in the range 1 January 1980 to 31 December 1999 or 31 December 2079 (system dependent).
Since a significant number of PCs would have stopped working after 31 December 1999, replacing older PCs was one part of dealing with Y2K, but correcting software with 2 digit years on all platforms, not just Microsoft, was also a big part of the work.
The brief mention at System time may be inadequate. Perhaps a more complete explanation should be found, or added to some appropriate article, and then add a link to that information from this article. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

First of March

There is a list of problems that happened on the first day of March, but it is not mentioned why this day is significant... 2A02:1810:3907:4C00:1002:0:0:4 (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Which year? What source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
That's the problem. There is no source, someone just decided mentioning problems at 01/03/2000. No source and not even an explanation of the choice of this date
I see, you're asking for clarification of content in the article. There was a February 29 in 2000 so, like the next section, days would be out by one if that was incorrectly calculated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"Y@K" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Y@K should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Y@K until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

article's title

Why is this called "Year 2000 Problem," which is a phrase that I doubt is used very much, whereas Y2K is easily recognized and, I would guess, what the topic is commonly called? Wikipedia uses most commonly used terms even when it goes against an organization's official names and complaints, yet here a different reasoning seems to have been used. What and why? Kdammers (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I suspect it's because most sources call it that, at least at some point, and it is more formal. Y2K and Y2k both redirect here. You may have a point as other acronyms do have articles. If you feel strongly about it, I suggest you open a page move discussion as suggested at WP:RM#CM, with evidence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The International Y2K Cooperation Center establishment date

I tried to edit this, but it got reverted automatically it seems. IY2KCC couldn't have been founded in 1988 since at the time the term "Y2K" hasn't even been coined yet. A quick google search shows that it was created in 1998. A silly oversight if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.248.69.52 (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Y2K scare?

Recently "Y2K scare" was added to the list of terms synonymous with the topic of the article. Does it really belong there? The "scare" was primarily about emotional responses to the underlying problem, but the scare was not the same as the problem. I'm inclined to remove the term from the synonym list. Assambrew (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

No response, so I boldly deleted the scare :) Assambrew (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

So called "edit war"

@Chaheel ... please tell me how I can remove my name from the Year 2000 page. DEddy (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

DEddy:
  • Let's first assume that you are who you claim to be - there's no evidence of that as yet. If you are Massachusetts programmer David Eddy, you have a blatant conflict of interest and should stop. If you aren't - you're impersonating somebody else, and should stop.
  • You can't. There is nothing controversial or BLP about the information, and it's reliably sourced. Again, assuming you are who you say you are - why do you want the information removed. You haven't actually given a reason for it to be removed.
  • I suppose you could be interviewed by a reliable source and in the interview say you no longer wish to be associated with the term, then we could add that in as well - but I don't think that's what you're after.
  • It is an edit-war. You're reverting multiple different editors, and showing no intention of stopping. I'm surprised you haven't been blocked already. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
As Chaheel Riens explained, Wikipedia:Edit warring is not acceptable and that is what is happening here.
You have removed content from the article three times 2021-02-02T00:06:51, 2021-02-02T14:04:08 and 2021-02-03T01:42:17. Doing so in just over 24 hours is clearly an edit war.
Discussion is the way to address it, not continued reverts.
I also suggested on your talk page that WP:AUTOPROB does not apply because the sources are reliable. You can always try WP:BLPCOMPLAINT or another route to have your name removed, but based on the sources, I don't see that option working.
There are a few options open to the rest of the project at this point. If you persist in removing the content, you could be blocked. Editing while not signed-in or through another account or another editor is what we call WP:SOCKing and faces other consequences. Another option is to apply page protection. I would like to be clear that I am not threatening you, simply laying out where the same actions or escalation could lead. I wish you the best of luck with this matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Eddy recently approached me via LinkedIn and I pointed the editor back here. I also realized that if another reliable source were to make the claim that someone else came up with the term, that would be grounds to reconsider. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Caused by expensive storage?

"The problem started because on both mainframe computers and later personal computers, storage was expensive..." Actually, not so much. Think about it: nobody seemed to worry about expensive storage when it came to wordy COBOL source code. The problem was directly caused by the narrow width of punched cards. Programmers tried to cram as much data as possible into the 72 usable bytes of a data record. When storage later went to tape and disk, two digit years were never expanded, and became a habit. I know that punched cards are addressed later in the article, but I think the above line is misleading as to the root cause of the Y2K problem. Assambrew (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

"Programmers tried to cram as much data as possible" That would be ANALYSTS, not programmers.

The hierarchy was & is: 1/ the business problem, 2/ analysis of the problem, & finally 3/ implementing a solution in code. DEddy (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 Problem

There are reports of problems related to year 2022 – https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/rtgwcf/in_2022_yymmddhhmm_formatted_times_exceed_signed. Do you think it's worth mentioning in the artice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.153.123 (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in "Time formatting and storage bugs ". It appears it will be fixed quickly. So I don't see a need to mention it here too. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Problems with the Opposing View section

The two citations supporting the claim that "countries that did nothing were fine" assertion are A) a NYT opinion piece that cites no sources, and B) a Washington Post piece about Italy that in no way supports the cited claim, but rather the opposite: that millions of dollars and person-hours were spent on fixing Y2K bugs in Italy. This is the entire underpinning of the "Critics pointed out that even in countries where very little had been done to fix software, problems were minimal" claim in the introduction, which in this light now appears to be totally unsupported. Royce (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Added info on Russia, which is a clearer case JQ (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Critic Rebuttal - Schools

Where is the source of the claim about school compliance? 47.19.209.232 (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Y2K (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Fringe group responses

I have tried to make this section conform to a more neutral point of view. In my opinion, much more work is needed, but I'm pretty new here and don't want to get ahead of myself. Note that something like this section seems to have been written in 2016 by IP addresses 1.132.96.150, 1.132.96.228, 1.132.96.213, 1.132.96.235 and finally by 1.132.96.240 following four reverts; after the final addition, reverter Walter Görlitz appears to have given up. Walter Görlitz has in fact since been blocked for edit warring, but in this case, his 'edit warring' seems justified. -- Tumnal (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Year_2000_problem/Archive_3&oldid=1199276721"