Curious listing order[]

  1. Died in the 1600s (10)
  2. Died in the 1610s (10)
  3. Died in the 160s (7)
  4. Died in the 1620s (10)

160s just after 1600s would have some logic, but after 1610s? Any chance someone can tweak the relevant template (deathdecade?) so they are all chronological if after 1BC? This category is linked direct from the sidebar, so we should try to make it look sensible for the large number of visitors it can expect. Same with birthdecade, I presume. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:17, January 26, 2010 (UTC)