Talk:100 (disambiguation)

Requested move 7 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved per evidence for primary topic status (both criteria) provided after relisting. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

– Given the preponderance of the decimal numbering system throughout human history (chiefly because we have ten fingers), the number 100 should be considered the primary topic for title "100". — JFG talk 23:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 100 → 100 (disambiguation)
 * 100 (number) → 100
 * Strong support as an incredibly important topic in mathematics and literally everything else, versus some random ancient year. Red   Slash  02:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 100%. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now / Maybe wait until the 3-digits RfC (Wikipedia talk:Article titles) is finished (and we establish a standard). Then, I think we can start deciding on primary topics. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good point as it would potentially have a more far-reaching impact on article titles of this nature, potentially irrespective of what outcome this RfM returns. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per lack of evidence given for primary topic status. There are too many other notable entities at  (e.g. two years, songs, films).  —  AjaxSmack  16:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . No evidence whatsoever that people searching with the term “100” are most likely looking for the number vs the years, etc. No argument for why this is the primary topic. Hint: if your argument includes the words “should be considered“, it’s no argument. —-В²C ☎ 06:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Ajax and Born2c - No evidence has been provided as to whether this is PRIMARYTOPIC or not, I would assume 100 BC and AD 100 could also be considered PT here. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – For the editors asking why I consider the number 100 a primary topic, I'm referring to the PTOPIC criterion of "long-term significance", not to "what people are likely searching for", although that one could be argued too. Quote from WP:PTOPIC: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. I thought my rationale Given the preponderance of the decimal numbering system throughout human history […] made it clear that I referred to long-term significance of the number, but I now see I should have said this explicitly. — JFG talk 21:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 16:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose this move 2601:541:4500:1760:E91C:2D49:8C8A:5B43 (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Completely obvious primary topic. 100 is one of the most important numbers out there, given the decimal system and its myriad uses, whereas the year is just a year, one of many from a far-gone age. It has a clear lead over AD 100 in page views too: |AD_100 for those who crave some sort of "evidence" for this rather obvious proposition. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.