Appendix talk:List of protologisms/large numbers
Please give more numbers with googol-n-plex for example googoldalplex,googolgigaplex etc. :) Please give just more very big numbers but no as complicated as googolbabplex but as googolfriplex and bigger. :)
Strong Keep It is difficult to find information on the subject as it is. This is a useful page.
The following information passed a request for deletion.
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.
This page is hopelessly full of made up terms which don't even qualify for protologism status..
- Keep. As well, some of these terms actually have been used, for instance "eleventy", "twelfty" and "googoltriplex". 209.247.22.199 22:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- How could a term not qualify as a protologism? That's a pretty low blow. Keep or move since this seems like a useful way to divide the protologisms thematically. From the lists we've seen, big numbers are just something people like to come up with names for. No objection to trimming if you want the page to be something useful, but then if any of these were useful they'd belong in the main space in the first place. DAVilla 23:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because of the massive sockpuppeting for the promoter of the "large numbers", the original motions to just delete them were curbed to merely LOP them. But in fact, it is just some individual's construction of them, using Wiktionary to promote the nonsense. The sheer volume of nonsense has clogged the LOP list. Also, they very likely are plants of copyvio material, so that proponent can circuitously sue WMF. Lastly, they are useless - you just can't use terms for numbers in that range - scientific notation is the only way to convey meaning (particularly unambiguously) for them. So not only have they never been used, it is absurd to think that they every could be used with any sort of frequency, to then be be included in the thing we descriptively call "The English language." --Connel MacKenzie 06:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- The copyright vio is an issue for keeping the entire list. But was Fark or Shoof or whatever he's called making these up himself? I thought he was consolidating lists, and if that's true it just speaks to how inventive people are when it comes to something so useless. In other words, I would keep numbers as a separate list not because it's Fark/Shoof but because it's everyone else who's pumping them out, and that one contributor was just the messenger in documenting them. Anyways the LOP is long and those definitions are also easy enough to distinguish. You can't argue trying to organize things unless... it's an inferior organization, perhaps? DAVilla 08:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because of the massive sockpuppeting for the promoter of the "large numbers", the original motions to just delete them were curbed to merely LOP them. But in fact, it is just some individual's construction of them, using Wiktionary to promote the nonsense. The sheer volume of nonsense has clogged the LOP list. Also, they very likely are plants of copyvio material, so that proponent can circuitously sue WMF. Lastly, they are useless - you just can't use terms for numbers in that range - scientific notation is the only way to convey meaning (particularly unambiguously) for them. So not only have they never been used, it is absurd to think that they every could be used with any sort of frequency, to then be be included in the thing we descriptively call "The English language." --Connel MacKenzie 06:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- The fact is that Shoof has been very disruptive, in his efforts to use Wiktionary to promote this crap. The arguments for keeping them (up until just a few moments ago) have all been his under different sock-puppets, to arrive at the original compromise of allowing them (a much smaller quantity, at that time) to clog WT:LOP. Since this has only encouraged further abuse from him, there is no reason such nonsense should be retained. --Connel MacKenzie 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because most of the words have only been used by one person. They have not been used by any in the field of mathematics, or have not noted by whom they have been used. Bballoakie 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep whichever ones can be verified as having been proposed by at least one person independent of Shoofark. Keep the separate page, WP:LOP is full. bd2412 T 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete them all. Also, all of those weird "less" terms (e.g., yelloworse, youngorse) that Shoof added to the page. He’s added so many words that I suspect he’s trying to use the LoP as a backdoor to publish his personal constructed language. —Stephen 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Let us keep the numbers on this list, not because they have any common usage, but that the different notations used may stimulate young minds and old to investigate the underlying expressions.
I propose that every expression have a link to an explanation its own notation and how it may be evaluated, perhaps in other notations as well. (Fine work for a graduate student.)
Alphabetical ordering is one method that has been done; increasing or decreasing value is another; type of notation used would be useful as well. To be able to switch between the 3 orderings would be nice also.
I longanimously include for submission a number that is used quite frequently in my circles, a Davillion.
In Conway’s chained arrow notation a Davillion is defined as
D = 6 → 6 → 6
--NewWorldOdor 18:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep
(supporting NewWorldOdor above).
I agreee that most of these number words are utter drivel and are unlikely to be used outside the imagination of contributors, but they illustrate the uncountable property of the natural numbers and the fact that all numbers are "invented", therefore the fact that someone has taken the trouble to define the number actually proves its existence! They do serve to stimulate the imagination and to illustrate different notations. Could we not find space for them somewhere with the appropriate caveats? -- perhaps an external website with a link if Wiktionarians feel that they are too silly to include on the main website. As a mathematician, I would be willing to co-ordinate this and even host the page on my server space if necessary.
What does anyone else think?
- Keep - Needed a new protologism OR a proto- neologism OR whatever
I believe that we need a word for the modern equivalent of the medieval discussions about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Although, I'm not sure whether it would be more applicable to this list or the discussion about its deletion. John Harvey 13:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Kept per consensus, and to keep it off the main protologism page. --Keene 16:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion.
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.
This page is hopelessly full of made up terms which don't even qualify for protologism status..
- Keep. As well, some of these terms actually have been used, for instance "eleventy", "twelfty" and "googoltriplex". 209.247.22.199 22:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- How could a term not qualify as a protologism? That's a pretty low blow. Keep or move since this seems like a useful way to divide the protologisms thematically. From the lists we've seen, big numbers are just something people like to come up with names for. No objection to trimming if you want the page to be something useful, but then if any of these were useful they'd belong in the main space in the first place. DAVilla 23:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because of the massive sockpuppeting for the promoter of the "large numbers", the original motions to just delete them were curbed to merely LOP them. But in fact, it is just some individual's construction of them, using Wiktionary to promote the nonsense. The sheer volume of nonsense has clogged the LOP list. Also, they very likely are plants of copyvio material, so that proponent can circuitously sue WMF. Lastly, they are useless - you just can't use terms for numbers in that range - scientific notation is the only way to convey meaning (particularly unambiguously) for them. So not only have they never been used, it is absurd to think that they every could be used with any sort of frequency, to then be be included in the thing we descriptively call "The English language." --Connel MacKenzie 06:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- The copyright vio is an issue for keeping the entire list. But was Fark or Shoof or whatever he's called making these up himself? I thought he was consolidating lists, and if that's true it just speaks to how inventive people are when it comes to something so useless. In other words, I would keep numbers as a separate list not because it's Fark/Shoof but because it's everyone else who's pumping them out, and that one contributor was just the messenger in documenting them. Anyways the LOP is long and those definitions are also easy enough to distinguish. You can't argue trying to organize things unless... it's an inferior organization, perhaps? DAVilla 08:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because of the massive sockpuppeting for the promoter of the "large numbers", the original motions to just delete them were curbed to merely LOP them. But in fact, it is just some individual's construction of them, using Wiktionary to promote the nonsense. The sheer volume of nonsense has clogged the LOP list. Also, they very likely are plants of copyvio material, so that proponent can circuitously sue WMF. Lastly, they are useless - you just can't use terms for numbers in that range - scientific notation is the only way to convey meaning (particularly unambiguously) for them. So not only have they never been used, it is absurd to think that they every could be used with any sort of frequency, to then be be included in the thing we descriptively call "The English language." --Connel MacKenzie 06:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- The fact is that Shoof has been very disruptive, in his efforts to use Wiktionary to promote this crap. The arguments for keeping them (up until just a few moments ago) have all been his under different sock-puppets, to arrive at the original compromise of allowing them (a much smaller quantity, at that time) to clog WT:LOP. Since this has only encouraged further abuse from him, there is no reason such nonsense should be retained. --Connel MacKenzie 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because most of the words have only been used by one person. They have not been used by any in the field of mathematics, or have not noted by whom they have been used. Bballoakie 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep whichever ones can be verified as having been proposed by at least one person independent of Shoofark. Keep the separate page, WP:LOP is full. bd2412 T 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete them all. Also, all of those weird "less" terms (e.g., yelloworse, youngorse) that Shoof added to the page. He’s added so many words that I suspect he’s trying to use the LoP as a backdoor to publish his personal constructed language. —Stephen 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Let us keep the numbers on this list, not because they have any common usage, but that the different notations used may stimulate young minds and old to investigate the underlying expressions.
I propose that every expression have a link to an explanation its own notation and how it may be evaluated, perhaps in other notations as well. (Fine work for a graduate student.)
Alphabetical ordering is one method that has been done; increasing or decreasing value is another; type of notation used would be useful as well. To be able to switch between the 3 orderings would be nice also.
I longanimously include for submission a number that is used quite frequently in my circles, a Davillion.
In Conway’s chained arrow notation a Davillion is defined as
D = 6 → 6 → 6
--NewWorldOdor 18:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep
(supporting NewWorldOdor above).
I agreee that most of these number words are utter drivel and are unlikely to be used outside the imagination of contributors, but they illustrate the uncountable property of the natural numbers and the fact that all numbers are "invented", therefore the fact that someone has taken the trouble to define the number actually proves its existence! They do serve to stimulate the imagination and to illustrate different notations. Could we not find space for them somewhere with the appropriate caveats? -- perhaps an external website with a link if Wiktionarians feel that they are too silly to include on the main website. As a mathematician, I would be willing to co-ordinate this and even host the page on my server space if necessary.
What does anyone else think?
- Keep - Needed a new protologism OR a proto- neologism OR whatever
I believe that we need a word for the modern equivalent of the medieval discussions about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Although, I'm not sure whether it would be more applicable to this list or the discussion about its deletion. John Harvey 13:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Kept per consensus, and to keep it off the main protologism page. --Keene 16:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reopened. I recognize Dbfirs, Stephen, BD2412, DAVilla and of course Keene as contributors here. Two of them suggested keeping only some small part of them, several of us advocate removing it again and one seems to be in favor of keeping it. That does not seem like a 'keep' to me. --Connel MacKenzie 09:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that we have the Citations space, is a complete list of protologisms necessary? Perhaps thematic lists such as this are the best way to go, or categories if we want to strike out all definitions.
Regardless, shouldn't such pages link to the citations of the word, and be removed when there are no citations? DAVilla 12:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is interesting that a whole bunch of users I've never seen before (all with less than a dozen edits) just happen to pop out of the woodwork to support this. It seems to me that the protologisms page was an interesting side show when Wiktionary first started, but has since become a huge mess which contributes nothing to a usable dictionary. Delete the whole thing. Please. Atelaes 18:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Naming numbers is meaningless without a scheme for doing so. If that scheme is also a linguistic mechanism then we should have the names in the dictionary. If that scheme is not a linguistic mechanism we should have it in the encyclopedia. If there isn't even a scheme it is just makin' crap up. DELETED. - [The]DaveRoss 01:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Why deleted??[edit]
I think this is a very useful page for young students who are interested in Math. 59.10.63.43 07:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)