Talk:nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
RFD[edit]
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.
Unlike the German case, this can be easily analyzed as sum of parts. It is bad enough that we already permit almost one million number entries in German (a bot to upload all of them is currently underway), and we should not allow the same for English as well. -- Liliana • 20:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. No discernible need. Delete. DAVilla 03:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Dmol 05:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think most of the million German entries should be deleted, too. Instead an appendix discussing the rules for formulating numerals could be written for each language. If a robot can create an endless number of formally correct entries, they are not dictionary stuff. If there's no rule that says so, it should be written. We need to define a standard set for numerals allowed for all languages. It might consist of numerals for 0 to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 1000, and thereafter the numbers of the form 103n. In addition to these, only numerals which do not follow the standard rules should be accepted. We might also rely on appendices. We already have this: Appendix:Cardinal numbers 0 to 9. --Hekaheka 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with you, the problem is that the majority of people think they're useful for whatever reason, so nothing can be done about it. -- Liliana • 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think most of the million German entries should be deleted, too. Instead an appendix discussing the rules for formulating numerals could be written for each language. If a robot can create an endless number of formally correct entries, they are not dictionary stuff. If there's no rule that says so, it should be written. We need to define a standard set for numerals allowed for all languages. It might consist of numerals for 0 to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 1000, and thereafter the numbers of the form 103n. In addition to these, only numerals which do not follow the standard rules should be accepted. We might also rely on appendices. We already have this: Appendix:Cardinal numbers 0 to 9. --Hekaheka 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Dmol 05:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly I'm in a minority here, but I would keep. Ƿidsiþ 16:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. We are not going to run out of space. Also, in some regions, this would be written as ninety-nine hundred and ninety-nine, and for clarity's sake we should explain that they mean the same thing. bd2412 T 19:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty strong keep. I don't know why numbers written as words should be excluded from "all words in all languages". — [Ric Laurent] — 13:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think for the same reason that sentences written from words are excluded from "all words in all languages", people just seem to agree that they aren't very useful to have around. - [The]DaveRoss 19:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: it is definitely a word, but it is a sum of parts and not special. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever the language, I would accept such numbers only when created manually, with several quotations (otherwise, a bot could create billions of entries). This rule should be added to CFI. Keep if quotations are added. Lmaltier 08:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)