4

One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez has one of those long names which don't fit in tags and aren't easy to shorten. One way to make it short is writing "(one) hundred' as "100". We have two options:

While the book has only one question now, it is one of the most celebrated Latin American works of fiction and almost certainly was a huge factor in the author getting a Nobel, so I would expect more questions about it.

Can we have a tag synonym here? Since the "one" is needed for discoverability, the first can be a synonym of the second.

6

seems like the right name to me. is just wrong: the title of the book is not One One Hundred Years of Solitude. is not possible due to the tag length limit (25 characters).

A synonym that contains “one-hundred” explicitly might be useful — we could make a synonym (the full title truncated to the length limit) redirecting to the more readable version.

But I question the implicit premise that we need such a tag at all. Why should we have per-book tags at all? The right tag to use here is .

8
  • 4
    I suggest removing the final paragraph of this answer. It doesn't really answer the question at hand: how to name a specific tag, given that it exists. If you want to make the case for abolishing per-book tags, do so on a meta thread devoted to that issue (as you've already done). Including it in this answer just muddies the issue, especially where voting is concerned. For instance, my upvote is for the first two paragraphs, but someone else's downvote might be for the third.
    – Rand al'Thor Mod
    Feb 13 '17 at 23:31
  • On the other hand, the reading of "100" is somewhat flexible: "a 100" would be read "a hundred", not "a one hundred",
    – muru
    Feb 13 '17 at 23:38
  • 1
    @Randal'Thor The final paragraph is part of this answer. We shouldn't be having this debate at all because the tag shouldn't exist. Feb 14 '17 at 12:30
  • 2
    @muru Maybe you would read it that way, but I would always read "a 100" as "a one-hundred."
    – amaranth
    Feb 16 '17 at 20:27
  • @amaranth and how would you read something like "ten 100s"?
    – muru
    Feb 17 '17 at 0:33
  • 1
    @muru "Ten one-hundreds", but I don't think I've ever seen that written anywhere, and I don't know what it would mean.
    – amaranth
    Feb 17 '17 at 0:39
  • @amaranth You'd see it in cricket, where it would mean "ten centuries" (a century being a score of a hundred or more runs, but less than two hundred), and be usually read as "ten hundreds". For example: "... Hashim Amla, Rilee Rossouw and de Villiers scored three 100s between them..."
    – muru
    Feb 17 '17 at 0:52
  • @muru Interesting... I suppose it's a convention that I've just never seen before.
    – amaranth
    Feb 17 '17 at 0:54
0

sounds really awkward, and you lose discoverability past the word "one".

I think it's better to focus on opening words and the key "solitude": .

2
  • Yes, that looks good
    – muru
    Feb 13 '17 at 15:19
  • 1
    Yeeech, please, no, don't abbreviate words unless you really have to, and if you must abbreviate, abbreviate at the end. If I type hundred-years or years-of-solitude, your proposed abbreviation won't appear. Feb 13 '17 at 21:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .