Talk:two hundred
Add topicLatest comment: 5 years ago by Dan Polansky in topic RFD discussion: January–September 2019
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Moved to Requests for deletion/English. --Lambiam 07:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Can be regarded as 'multiple of parts'. Over 100. John Cross (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Multiple of parts, over 100. John Cross (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
multiple of parts, over 100... unless this is about two and a half turns... John Cross (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Multiple of parts. John Cross (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Multiple of parts. Could conceivably be kept as translation target. John Cross (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep all Purplebackpack89 12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect all speedily to "Appendix:English numerals" unless any have an idiomatic sense, as per the policy previously put in place: see "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals". — SGconlaw (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be surprised if some of these would be worthy translation targets, but on their own merit the should probably be deleted per the rule SG linked. - TheDaveRoss 13:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep two hundred, three hundred, ..., nine hundred. Some of them will be per WT:THUB. Now, the items to apply for WT:THUB need to be looked for, but I believe can be found. For instance, pl:dwieście is not obvious from pl:sto, and cs:dvě stě is not obvious from cs:sto; it is not obvious why it is not "dvě sta". Or taking pl:dziewięćset, the inflection in pl:sto does not provide anything for me to guess pl:dziewięćset. If WT:THUB would not apply, I would support keeping these multiples of "hundred" as an exception to the passed rule; this is a small set of round numerals and I think the reader is better off our having these entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep two hundred per Semitic (where a dual of "hundred" is typically used) and certain Slavic languages, per Dan. eleven hundred might also be kept as a translation target.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)- In that case, a translation hub exception needs to be added to "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals", and it needs to be clarified exactly which numerals the exception applies to (for example, "200" but not "729"?). — SGconlaw (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- The easy solution is to rescind proposal 2 of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals as redundant to proposal 1 of that vote; that is, remove "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals" as covered by "An attested integer word (such as twenty-three or twenty-third) or a decimal numeral (sequence of 0, ..., 9 digits) that is ≥ 0 and ≤ 100 should be kept even if it is not idiomatic. [...]" --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- In that case, a translation hub exception needs to be added to "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals", and it needs to be clarified exactly which numerals the exception applies to (for example, "200" but not "729"?). — SGconlaw (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- All of these are subject to the results of this vote which means they should be deleted. - TheDaveRoss 00:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see why Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals should prevail over WT:THUB, which was also voted on. It seems to me that the supporters of proposal 2 in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals (which I opposed) did not realize there could be unintended consequences of what they supported; I did not realize the unintended consequences either and I merely pointed out to redundancy. The idea would be, don't add rules that you do not strictly need since you are a mere human, and humans in general are poor at assessing unintended consequences of rules. Hence common law and "override all rules", less aptly called "ignore all rules". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not being a registered user, my vote probably doesn't count. But I just looked it up. I thought it was spelt "two-hundred", also would've considered "twohundred", never would've guessed it was "two hundred". So it's helpful for non-natives. Also: "wiktionary is not paper". 2.203.201.61 20:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- RFD kept: no consensus to delete. There are 2 "keep all", and there are 2 deletes that I count as bold: John Cross and TheDaveRoss. SGconlaw has "redirect" but even if that were counted as a delete, these would be 3 deletes. Lingo does not indiate any explicit delete, and makes an explicit keep on two hundred. Over 7 months have elapsed from the nomination start. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oops, I did not really vote keep on eleven hundred. I am voting keep on eleven hundred now, and if someone wants to have it deleted, let them create a new separate nomination, where, depending on the discussion (WT:THUB?), I am considering an abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)