Talk:100 (disambiguation)

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)[reply]

• 100 → 100 (disambiguation)
• 100 (number) → 100

– 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Support 100%. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now / Maybe wait until the 3-digits RfC (Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC about articles on three digit numbers) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Oppose per lack of evidence given for primary topic status. There are too many other notable entities at 100 (e.g. two years, songs, films). —  AjaxSmack  16:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per AjaxSmack. 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)[reply]
• 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. –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

• Oppose this move 2601:541:4500:1760:E91C:2D49:8C8A:5B43 (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 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: [1] for those who crave some sort of "evidence" for this rather obvious proposition. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.