Talk:AD 100

1

Um, 100 is in the first century, not the second. 1-100, you know.

Format

05-Jan-2008: At this point, there has been no "official" Wikipedia format for the 180,000 worldwide year articles. The format of yearly articles "1-100" follows the typical worldwide inclusion of Events/ Births/Deaths, but also allows partial format control by using 2 templates for infobox/navbox control:

Template:C1YearInTopic - controls a right-side navbox to link other articles by topic-name.
Template:C1YearEnd - controls bottom infoboxes or categories to be included.

Some issues also considered in article format:

The word "Year" is used to introduce each year ("Year 99"), without starting a sentence with a numeral or Ninety-nine as traditional for clarity of wording.
All event dates are wikilinked "[[January 1]]" to allow date-format preferences.
Births show name, occupation, and death-year "(d. 143)".
Deaths show name, occupation, and birth-year "(b. 86)".
No editorializing for Births/Deaths, such as "Julius Caesar not only defined a calendar lasting 1,500 years, he redefined the meaning of Emperor to the universe." Simply state the name/role.
When describing events, avoid long essay-style text, but wikilink (more than usual) to other articles that contain the related details.
Repeat some wikilinks, if they are several lines apart: the events might be scanned or search-jumped, so prior wikilinks might not be noticed by readers.
Avoid including navboxes with many wikilinks (such as "Literature navbox of the universe") because overlinking or spam-linking gets multiplied by each of the 2,500 year-articles re-linked to those boxes; instead, link to articles containing 2nd-level link-boxes (such as "List of famous painters"). Note a navbox of just 200 links could generate 200 * 2_500 years = 500_000 (half a million) links to expand the Wikipedia megalink crisis.

Those are the major issues for year-article format. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crowding text

05-Jan-2008: The format of yearly articles should not crowd text with very large images or large right-side navigation boxes. In years "1-100" the long vertical navbox of "{{Year in other calendars}}" was replaced with the equivalent horizontal bottom table "{{Year in other calendars table}}" to expand text 50% from 8 words-per-line to over 12 per line. Debates had lamented limiting the explanatory text about each event, while crowding of text made longer sentences stretch down the page. Keeping wider text lines allows more explanatory text per event, without stretching a page as much, providing space for more context written about each event. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future format control

Due to current wiki-software limitations (most wikis worldwide use novice-level software), there is no way that Wikipedia could enforce the format of the year-articles "1-100" during editing. Wiki software in early 2008 can't even edit for search-and-replace, which was trivial editing over 30 years ago. Consequently, various year-articles are being hacked, trashed, and spasticated every day: typically, 5% of year articles will contain overlooked vandalism unless someone fixes them all in one week. Expect over 10 major variations of format in just 200 yearly articles. Don't be discouraged: future wiki-software could be easily modified to diff-compare an edited article against text files ("baselines"), of standard headers or text, to warn the user that the edited file must be revised to retain certain standard lines before saving. There could even be multiple levels of such simple "baseline" files for warnings. The concept is so simple, that the world can't ignore the capability of partially-controlled wiki articles much longer, even though today's backward computer technology seems stuck on stupid ("Computer virus?" Doh. "Computer virus?" Doh. "They were preventable?" Doh.).

Despite the limitations in Wikipedia editing with MediaWiki 1.6, it might be possible to retro-fit a bot which reverts articles that don't meet a predefined standard format, in a manner similar to reverting vandalized text. A reader would be free to look at the prior revision to bring whatever reverted text forward while meeting the standard format. Of course that is an expensive way to ensure quality: reworking afterward, rather than adjusting or guiding the editing operation while in progress. OMG, if only we could get some experienced computer scientists to write wiki-software without a giant computer company merging them out of business! Good software is the greatest revenge against college-dropout billionaires. Wikid77 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year of the Consulship of Traianus and Frontinus

Has anyone found a reliable citation for the claim that AD 100 was at the time known as "Year of the Consulship of Traianus and Frontinus"? I was not able to find one. If I cannot find one in the next two weeks, and there is no objection posted here, I will remove that portion of the beginning of the article.--Rajulbat (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]