Talk:thousand one
RFD 1[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.
I'd rfc'd this, but EP suggested deletion and creation of an Appendix on number-word formation. I agree, though I am not sure that anyone would ever use the Appendix. The entry definitely seems SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Native English speakers might not use the appendix, but there are lots of fiddly spelling and hyphenation issues for English names of cardinal numbers that non-native speakers would find very useful to have an explanation for. There is also grammar to consider, since these words can function kind of like adjectives (but are not comparable) and kinds of like nouns (but the "plural" forms aren't used the same as the singular). --EncycloPetey 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't and didn't doubt the utility of the information. I doubt only that it would be found, except by a user being given the link, probably in response to an inquiry. We would need to have a very explicit and elaborate effort to provide hooks for such content. Right now I suspect (are there any facts?) that new users never find appendices that contain what they need. DCDuring TALK 11:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- 2 cents..I try to put an appendix link under See also, or Usage notes, or whatever is the most useful placing. That way, the user will find the info. In this instance, "See also" in the entry number, and perhaps in specific entries such as one and hundred etc. -- ALGRIF talk 17:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Should we have a suggested layout for number words (and similar classes of entries, like letters, numbers, symbols) that contain such items as these links? Are there particularly good examples of any of these? We also by now must have guidelines about criteria by entries of the various kinds are to be excluded or included. I have had trouble finding them. Or do we just leave it bots and existing RfV/RfD? DCDuring TALK 18:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The templates I set up for
{{cardinalbox}}and{{ordinalbox}}were designed to clearly display an Appendix link in cases where an appropriate appendix exists. There are examples on the talk page for{{cardinalbox}}of what this looks like. --EncycloPetey 17:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC) - Oh, and in answer to the other part of your question, Equinox went through the ordinal number entries and standardized/expanded them a few days ago, so you can look at entries for words like twelfth for examples of how they might be done. This doesn't, of course, include the additional problem of coordinating all the various numerical script systems that might be included, since ordinals aren't developed to that level yet the way that the cardinals are. --EncycloPetey 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- The templates I set up for
- Should we have a suggested layout for number words (and similar classes of entries, like letters, numbers, symbols) that contain such items as these links? Are there particularly good examples of any of these? We also by now must have guidelines about criteria by entries of the various kinds are to be excluded or included. I have had trouble finding them. Or do we just leave it bots and existing RfV/RfD? DCDuring TALK 18:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- 2 cents..I try to put an appendix link under See also, or Usage notes, or whatever is the most useful placing. That way, the user will find the info. In this instance, "See also" in the entry number, and perhaps in specific entries such as one and hundred etc. -- ALGRIF talk 17:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't and didn't doubt the utility of the information. I doubt only that it would be found, except by a user being given the link, probably in response to an inquiry. We would need to have a very explicit and elaborate effort to provide hooks for such content. Right now I suspect (are there any facts?) that new users never find appendices that contain what they need. DCDuring TALK 11:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus. --Rising Sun 19:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
RFD 2[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Rfd-redundant: noun, The figure 1001. I don't think this is a noun ("this is a thousand one"?), rather, it is an application of the cardinal number sense. -- Prince Kassad 23:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Noun section deleted'. Ƿidsiþ 06:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
RFC[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
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.
I have no idea what such an entry is supposed to look like, but, as is, deleting this would be better than keeping it. DCDuring TALK 03:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Previous discussions I've seen disfavored the inclusion of these sum-of-parts numerical entries. The information could be better handled with an appendix on constructing and using such numbers in English. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Striking. I see not much about the entry that should be cleaned up. No specific complaints that can be fixed have been raised, other than a implied request for deletion, for which we have RFD. --Dan Polansky 12:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)