Talk:100/Archive 1

Comments
Quote from the article: In English slang, adding the number 100 to a particular skill or subject denotes introductory knowledge ("Physics 100", "Soccer 100"), akin to the name of a first year university subject. I believe it is actually 101 which is added to the subject to denote basic or introductory knowledge. --Kaltaugh (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What was the rationale for turning this article into a redirect for Hundred? One hundred is a specific numeric entity, while hundred is a more general entity. Therefore, each should have its own article, in my opinion. -- Anonymous UserThis article is fairly pointless - in particular, looks like everything under 'In other fields' is an absolute waste of disk space. Wikipedia should not become repository of random bits of useless information - which it will if anyone is allowed to post an article about ANYTHING. This article is fairly analogous to posting an article about boxes, and having a whole section related to boxes in various fields - eg:- boxes in the shoe industry - most new shoes come in boxes- boxes in the software industry - shrinkwrap software comes in boxes- etc, etc -- Another anonymous user  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.72.4 (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC) s

disambiguation for other uses
I think this article should be about the mathematical properties of the number 100. all other meanings for it should be in other articles, with links from a disambig page, and a DAB at the top of this page. i want to do this for a lot of numbers, but i see so many number articles with other uses documented, that im hesitant to change the direction of these articles without consensus. i think this is WP policy, but again what should be and what is are 2 different things. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dumping "In entertainment" section here
If anyone thinks any of the following is worth salvaging into this or another article. Knodeltheory (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

""
The usage of is under discussion, see talk:Hundred -- 65.94.78.70 (talk)

Merge proposal.
I propose to merge Hundred (word) into 100 (number), preferably as a first section above the various uses, describing the etymology of the common name for the number. The article, Hundred (word), does not describe any non-numerical uses of the word, and has remained a stub for nine years, barely growing at all from its initial state in 2004. bd2412 T 02:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, even though you don't have the merge pointers correct. The article "hundred" says it is not about the number 100. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC) I've removed the merger tags from both pages per the discussion here. Natg 19 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose the word hundred article lists meanings "120" and "100", so 120=/=100, therefore it is not the same topic as the value 100 or "hundreds" (100,200,300...), but it is covered in 100s (100-199/100-999), so is something that this article can cover. Perhaps a better solution is to move it to wiktionary, and put up etymologies and usage notes per wiktionary entry layout -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way are the merge pointers not correct? Do you think that I should be proposing to merge 100 (number) into Hundred (word)? bd2412  T 13:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that they didn't point to the discussion page, but they apparently do. They should point to this section of the page, though.  IMHO, the "discuss=" field should be strongly encouraged, if not mandatory.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As to the word, the first line of that article says "Today in English, a hundred is always taken to be equal to 100". A similar evolving use of language is included in the article, 1,000,000,000, which discusses how "billion" used to mean something else, but now means that. Isn't it odd that in an article on "100", there is absolutely no discussion of how the word "hundred" came to mean this? bd2412  T 18:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons given by 65.94.78.70 above and here. But thanks for raising the matter, as we should certainly do something.  If the article remains, its name should be precise enough to disambiguate from Hundred (county division), which is also a "word".  We could even hijack the current Hundred (number) redirect. Certes (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and and there isn't enough information that it needs a separate article. (Do we want Apple (word), which discusses the fruit and the company?) - Ypnypn (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We do transwiki (move) things over from Wikipedia to Wiktionary (the dictionary project), so a merge isn't necessarily the only option, we could move it to the dictionary project. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary already has an entry on hundred (note that Wiktionary does not "disambiguate" words), and discussion is underway about expanding the definition cover the "long hundred" sense. However, this article still lacks information about how the number 100 came to be called a "hundred". bd2412  T 15:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Isn't it time to close this.  It's been 6 months since the last comment, although I moved some content from here to there since the last comment.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose That article is poorly written and unintelligible. If it is improved propose again. QuentinUK (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are units called 'hundred' that are not five score, the Germanic tradition of using hundred to mean a six-score number is noted here.  Both Vincte Pujals (Filisofie de la Numeracion, Barcelona, 1844) and Essig (Doze, notre dix futura), use the word hundred to mean '100', that is to mean, 144 when written in base 12.  The article on 100 does not discuss the alternate meaning that hundred could simply mean the 'second column right of unity'.  Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Since the conversation isn't closed, I'll throw in another
 * Oppose, but note that "hundred (word)" is a terrible idea for a Wikipedia article and wasn't the actual scope of the article anyway. I've moved it to Long hundred to reflect its actual content, which sharply differentiates it from this number. It is necessary to include some discussion of the medieval ambiguity here, though. I myself think it's noteworthy enough to put in the lead of the current article; it's not something we want buried in the middle or bottom of the page if people are here wondering why the English thought C was equal to six score. — Llywelyn II   08:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hyphen in ordinal
Hi, everyone.

In the infobox, the fully spelled name of the ordinal—i.e., the expansion of "100th" to "one hundredth"—ought to be "one-hundredth". This is a common ambiguity, which can be corrected by careful adherence to a system of spaces and hyphens, whose utility becomes obvious when we consider the denominators of fractions:
 * one hundredth = 1/100
 * one-hundredth = n/100

With "one" at the beginning, the difference may seem partly negligible—but consider these:
 * two hundredths = 2/100 (i.e., two (one-)hundredths)
 * two-hundredths = n/200 (i.e., some number of 200ths)
 * three hundredths = 3/100
 * three-hundredths = n/300
 * &c.

President Lethe (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:100 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, the discussion is now at Talk:100 (disambiguation). – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

a hundred of bricks
According to the OED: only in measures of quantity the structure is a hundred of bricks. Is such usage properly covered yet? --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"99.999999999999999999999..." listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 99.999999999999999999999.... The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)