# Talk:three hundred

## Deletion debate

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

I’m nominating this for deletion because it is not idiomatic and its presence herein offers no guiding principle for excluding herefrom the rest of the infinite set of cardinal numbers expressed in the English language. The phrase’s meaning is entirely predictable as, it seems, are its translations (which often isn’t the case for numbers like twenty and twelve):

This entry was drawn to my attention by DAVilla’s post (timestamped: 05:32, 6 November 2009) in WT:RFD#two-wheeled which used the existence of three hundred as an argument in favour of the retention of the equally unidiomatic and problematic two-wheeled.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep. This is a noun doesn't have to be idiomatic. "Expressions" have to be idiomatic, this is just a noun made up of two words. Someone explain to me how this doesn't meet CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep, otherwise we have to delete all the cardinal numbers which do not have a secondary reason for keeping. seventeen anyone? The limit is only set by any one editor's patience and reason. -- ALGRIF talk 14:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That is not so. We’d keep seventeen because it’s a single word (it’s also one of a set of only seven or so entries of that class), and we keep all single words, however semantically transparent. We ought to delete three hundred, just like we’d delete seventeen hundred.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If we keep this, why not [[seventeen thousand]] and [[forty billion]]?​—msh210 17:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see this deleted but I know it won't be. In its favour, though, I would add that keeping it doesn't imply we must add an infinite set of other numbers: only those that are attestable. (That's still a little absurd.) Equinox 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Precisely, msh210. Equinox, they easily attested.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep if only for the translations (please add German). But this does not mean that I am advocating that we add all the rest - we have better things to do with our time. SemperBlotto 09:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope you wouldn’t advocate having an entry for nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine just so we can have a Translations section containing its German equivalent, neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig (google books:neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig)…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Only if you could be bothered - I couldn't, especially without the German first. SemperBlotto 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, now we have both; do you really think there’s any use in having them, especially the English one?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Badly formatted or broken entries bother me (and I fix them) even when I care nothing about the word itself. Allowing inclusion merely for translative purposes dramatically increases the amount of maintenance that needs to take place around here and I am therefore firmly against it. --Bequw¢τ 04:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

delete this and its buddies one hundred, two hundred, four hundred, five hundred, six hundred, seven hundred, eight hundred and nine hundred. Include the rule for creating them in the entry for "hundred". --Hekaheka 11:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Hekaheka.​—msh210 18:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep as one of the more basic numeric units. The numerals are a small set of words, so there's little harm in having the 9 entries Hekaheka would see deleted. We're not opening the doors for a flood of entries with these nine. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we worried that we will have too many number-based entries? What harm will they do? Explain to use the positive side of deleting this. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
People shouldn't think this is somehow some kind of weird idiomatic construction in English: it's simply three + hundred, and people should realize that. If I look up þrjú hundruð in a dictionary and see it means "300", I will then wonder whether there's something special about that number: whether the word for 200 is not similarly constructed. If there's no entry for þrjú hundruð, I'll just look up the parts, and know (especially if there's a usage note at hundruð) what the whole means.​—msh210 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
What's the difference, EP, between three hundred on the one hand and three thousand, one million, one billion, one milliard, one trillion, one quadrillion, . . . one vigintillion, . . . on the other?​—msh210 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You can see the grammatical difference between terms like hundred and one hundred in the usage notes for those terms. We had a prior discussion in which it was well-established that these words exhibit different grammatical behavior when combined with one. Alone, hundred is a noun, but when preceded by another cardinal the combination functions grammatically as a numeral. Thus, the combination has a different part of speech from the principal element. --EncycloPetey 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per msh210. This is exactly the same as three thousand, three million, and so on. It's all well and good to point out that "vigintillion" is a noun whereas "several vigintillion" is a numeral ("several vigintillion reasons", but not *"vigintillion reasons" alone), but why would we address that with an entry at [[several vigintillion]], rather than with useful information at [[vigintillion]]? —RuakhTALK 21:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
How do you feel about attributive uses, such as in the "Three Hundred Years War"? It's not a sequence of three descriptives modifying "war", since three hundred acts as a single unit word. That would not be true of "several vigintillion reasons", in which several is a determiner rather than part of a numeral. Likewise, there is no conflict known as the Several Hundred Years War, because "several hundred" does not have the same grammatical attributes as "[numeral] hundred". Change of part of speech, remember? --EncycloPetey 21:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Couldn’t the same be said of a conflict called the “Six Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty-Nine Years War”?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
If such a name were attestable, yes, but it isn't. The "Three Hundred Years War" is attestable in published literature. --EncycloPetey 21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per CFI. If CFI doesn't support it, let's find a general principle for excluding these compound and phrasal numbers not otherwise meaningful, eg, 69, 666, 2012 (?), etc. (And please don't make the encyclopedic entry for "Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War".) DCDuring TALK 22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: " [] 'several hundred' does not have the same grammatical attributes as '[numeral] hundred'. Change of part of speech, remember?": I remember that you said it, but I don't remember agreeing. What is your basis for this statement? —RuakhTALK 22:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Botht he examples I've presented as well as all the evidence accumulated in the aforementioned previous discussion from a year ago. --EncycloPetey 22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing in that discussion to support a distinction between three hundred and any other <determiner> hundred. I agree with your statement there that "we could call these words [hundred, thousand, etc.] both numerals and nouns, with Usage notes included to explain their limited functioning as numerals." —RuakhTALK 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now added a second definition of three hundred that is idiomatic. --EncycloPetey 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. —RuakhTALK 22:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
On what basis? The quote (and title) state "three hundred" but the figure is not exactly 300. --EncycloPetey 22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The same sense exists for any X hundred, so it's a property of hundred, not of three hundred. —RuakhTALK 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
But it's not a property of hundred; it's only a property of X hundred where X is a cardinal numeral. It's also not a property of three hundred two. It's a property of only certain constructions including hundred, and not others. --EncycloPetey 23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. It's a property of the word hundred that the phrase X hundred, where X is a numeral or other determiner, can be used approximately. Unless you mean to tell me that "several hundred" means an exact integer multiple of 100? (Actually, I'm not even sure that it's a linguistic property of the word hundred per se, as opposed to a general property of our culture's use of numbers. We also use "3.1416" when we really mean some value between exactly 3.14155 and exactly 3.14165, and "a dozen" when we mean anywhere from ten to fifteen. But I'd be quite fine with mentioning it at [[hundred]].) —RuakhTALK 23:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It is a more general property, but in a much more complicated way than you've indicated. For continuous decimal values, yes, we mean a margin of error plus or minus half the value of the final place value. But, for rounded values 100 or greater, that is no longer true. As an approximation, 300 could mean "between 250 and 349" or "between 295 and 304" or "between 299.5 and 300.4". There are several possible ranges of estimation at this scale, which is not true of the decimal values you mention. --EncycloPetey 23:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
But I don't think that that variability makes three hundred, specifically, idiomatic. —RuakhTALK 23:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) Then let me ask a general question: If you don't think this is a case of being idiomatic, then when or how can a numeral be idiomatic? I maintain that numerals cannot be idiomatic in precisely the same way as nouns or verbs by virute of belonging to a different part of speech that exhibits different grammar. They are idiomatic in somewhat different ways. --EncycloPetey 23:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the one-word numerals, I think a numeral is only idiomatic if (1) its construction can't be inferred just from an understanding of the rest of the numeral system (for example, French "quatre-vingts" is idiomatic, because even though it really does mean 4×20, you'd never guess that it's the term for "eighty" in much of francophonia, as is "quatre-vingt" for much the same reason; but "quatre-vingt trois" is not), or (2) it has a meaning that can't be inferred just from an understanding of the numeral system and the way numerals are used (for example, "sixty-nine" is idiomatic). More generally, I don't think a word-sequence is "idiomatic" if it belongs to a huge set of parallelly-constructed word-sequences with parallel semantics. —RuakhTALK 03:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: "huge set of parallelly-constructed word-sequences with parallel semantics". You mean like the scientific names of plant families, which are all regularly constructed by exactly the same predictable rules. I'd disagree about three hundred belonging to a "huge" set though, since the way it which the range at which the second definition works is limited to a very few cardinal numerals. And most compounded cardinal numerals have no secondary range meaning beyond to normal truncation or rounding of decimal components.
The construction of a composite numeral also does not follow the normal rules of English grammar for the use of multipliers. Compare "three rabbits", "three children", "three lemmata" with "three hundred". When three precedes hundred the grammar is different.
You do agree, though, that the second definition I've added is distinct from the first one, yes? --EncycloPetey 05:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the scientific names of plant families, so can't comment on that. (I had actually assumed that they had one-word names, even.) But personally, I do consider {X hundred}, where X is any integer in [1, 99], or any of various other determiners ("a", "a few", "several", etc.), to be a large set, even taken alone; but to it, we also need to add {X thousand}, where X is any integer in [1, 999], or any of the aforementioned determiners, and {X million}, and so on.
The construction of a composite numeral does follow the normal rules of English grammar for the use of multipliers in forming composite numerals. Compare "forty million", "sixteen hundred", "twenty bajillion".
I'm not sure whether the second definition is really distinct — as I said, I'm not sure this is strictly linguistic — but I'm quite fine with treating it as distinct.
RuakhTALK 14:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Ruakh (it's SoP). EncycloPetey, I disagree that your second sense is distinct. Any number can be an approximate. There is no qualitative difference when rounding whole or decimal numbers. The decimal .5 can be the approximation of .503 at various "scales", both to the nearest tenth (.45-.55) and hundredth (.495-.505). (Some notations for noting numerical precision would use .50 as distinct from .5 for rounding to the hundredth but not not all do.) --Bequw¢τ 03:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Butting in: what seems worth considering is that the term "three hundred" has a one-word translation in languages that do not usually form long multisyllabic words such as Russian, unlike German and Finnish. By considering only these languages, we avoid including long sum-of-parts numerals that would follow from the existence of their translations in German and Finnish. Yes, this is an extra-CFI consideration, going in the direction of "translation targets" proposal, the proposal that has gone nowhere so far. It seems to me that the inclusion of German and Finnish within "translation targets" proposal makes it unworkable, for then the proposal would lead to the inclusion of a large number of sum-of-parts terms. I wonder how German dictionaries proceed anyway, as German-one-wordness is in practice quite a different concept from English-one-wordness, so long as one-wordness is defined as freedom-from-spaces.
What we could do is at least postpone or suspend the deletion, acknowledging that, while the not-yet-deleted terms fail to meet CFI, they seem to promise to meet CFI in future. --Dan Polansky 08:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Current entries should meet the current CFI. If the CFI changes the undelete feature will still be around. --Bequw¢τ 04:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It is true that the undelete feature is going to be still around. But, as the motivation for the inclusion of this entry stems from the "translation target" proposal, you will have to update all the translations linking to "three hundred" upon its deletion, and also upon its undeletion. This, to me, seems enough motivation to keep the entry extra-CFI at least temporarily. This rationale applies only to entries that would be included per the "translation targets" proposal; it does not apply to sum-of-parts multi-word phrases that are merely deemed useful. OTOH updating pages that link to "three hundred" is doable; it is just more work.
In any event, "three hundred" seem to me a pivot case for "translation targets" proposal, justifiable within that proposal without invoking German and Finnish translations. The inclusion would enable the navigation from, say, Czech "třista" to Russian "триста" and Portuguese "trezentos". Once the term "three hundred" is deleted, there is no way to navigate in this way, as "třista" is not allowed to list non-English terms as its translations. --Dan Polansky 10:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not much work at all, just comment the links out (they don't have to be removed completely). This ensures that the CFI is met while proposals are debated as they can and do languish for a loooong time. --Bequw¢τ 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong delete. Don't see how this could ever be non-SoP or idiomatic. Almost any number can be used to imply approxmiation ("She deducted me three thousand points for running over that pedestrian."; "For the six hundredth time, turn off that damn computer!"; "I must have dropped my shopping ten times on the way home", etc.) Thus numbers that are not singular words in English should only have entries if they really can be used to create entirely new meanings (e.g. sixty-nine, ninety-nine, etc). Tooironic 12:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite the confusion, that isn't in CFI. It just says expressions have to be idiomatic. Surely three hundred is just a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The term "three hundred" is not a noun but a numeral referring to a number. --Dan Polansky 08:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
@Tooironic. Well technically, three hundred is never "sum of parts"... it's product of parts. Think about it: three hundred and hundred three are interpreted in entirely different ways in English. In the first instance, the value is obtained by multiplication. However in the latter instance, the value is obtained by addition. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of academic discussion :): the sum operator in CFI's "sum of parts" is a semantic sum, not an arithmetic sum. Both arithmetic sum and arithmetic product commute (a * b = b * a), unlike semantic sum. Thus, "34" is a sum of parts in the sense that the meaning of "34" can be derived from the meaning of "3", the meaning of "4", and the meaning of the non-commuting concatenation operator for numerals; and yet, "34" refers to a different number than "43" does, and neither one refers to the number seven. Admittedly, the term "sum of parts" as applied to multi-word terms may be a bit misleading, also because the alleged semantic analogue of arithmetic sum does not commute, but we have to live with it, instead of trying to read the term "sum of parts" literally, as if it were a semantic sum of parts ;). --Dan Polansky 08:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not accepting all numbers (even when constructed regularly, they are words nonetheless), but only when inserting in the page (e.g.) 3 independent actual citations with the word written in letters and used in sentences? The same rule might be adopted for all infinite sets of words with little or no interest. In most cases, definitions would not be really useful, but pages may be useful for some other purposes (e.g. anagrams or translations). If somebody wants to create such a page and finds it useful, why not? Lmaltier 23:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Seems to be a useful entry. --Yair rand 01:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I accept that it is more than the Sum of its Parts. And yet, by that logic, shouldn't we also include five million two hundred and twenty-two thousand three hundred and ninety-two? Tooironic 13:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Lmaltier, why do you consider "three hundred" a word in English and not several? --Bequw¢τ 04:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I take word in its linguistic sense (not the sense used by typographers). In this sense, three hundred is as much a word as three. Lmaltier 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you, Lmaltier, think three cats or several hundred is also a word?​—msh210 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete because the full meaning can be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. What is lacking in the definitions of its components is a usage note (or reference to an appendix on Numbers) about how components combine and about approximate or nonspecific uses. ~ Ningauble 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete because lexical treatment of compound numbers is a waste of resources and ineffectively conveys number-name-formation information to language learners. Search should allow users to find component words (decoding). An appendix should enable users to form number words (encoding). The grammar of numbers in different languages is important, well worth some thought. An initial approach that describes in an appendix the formation of numbers in each language would be a help. The exact boundary between lexical and grammatical treatment could be decided based on a fact base. Obviously the one-word, hyphenless number names in English should be lexical. If WT:CFI cannot be made to give the right result, then it needs emendment by amendment or by replacement by appropriately revised Editable CFI. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Dictionaries are useless without entries for numbers. Razorflame 15:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you actually find any professionally edited dictionary with an entry for three hundred? Equinox 13:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
"three hundred." WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University. 22 Jan. 2010, one example. Razorflame 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course Wordnet (also through their redistributors) is also the only OneLook reference that includes the term. Wordnet often includes many non-idiomatic compound terms, but not every one. Perhaps we should adopt the rule that effectively allowed us to include all that they include. That would be a large, but not unbounded, step in the direction of translation targets. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
But oddly they stop at five hundred (no six/seven/eight/nine hundred) so I'm not sure if their inclusion would have any bearing on our general inclusion of these types of numbers. --Bequw¢τ 14:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• I realize now that I never voiced my opinion on the "number approximating 300" sense. It, too, is SoP: delete.​—msh210 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Ruakh et al. I think:
1. the attributive-use-as-part-of-proper-noun argument has repeatedly been rejected in all cases in which it has been advanced.
2. the translation-target argument has not been accepted
3. we waste time/space/maintenance on lexical treatment of a quintessentially grammatical matter such as the formation of numbers.
OTOH, there may be some class of contributors that finds adding such entries therapeutic in some way. Adding them and their translations may be good training for newbies to be ultimately applied to more important entries, allowing contributors to learn formatting, etc. And even if the entry is done completely wrong there is very little risk of harm as no real user is likely to see it. But we might wonder if the training is useful for the rest of the work that needs to be done here. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW the 'vote' seems to be 6 keeps vs. 10 deletes, so that's 10/16 = 62.5% for deletion, is that a keep or a delete then? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, only just tho. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

## RFV discussion

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.

“A number approximating 300.” An example sentence is given: “There were three hundred people at the conference.” Believable, but let’s have some cites.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah - I think you say "about three hundred" or "three hundred or so". SemperBlotto 22:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Not always. I've added one cite already. This kind of imprecision due to rounding is more common than most folks realize. One notable example occurs in The Charge of the Light Brigade, where the 673 riders (or 661, or possibly 607) become "the six hundred". "Into the valley of death rode the six hundred seventy-three" just isn't as poetic. --EncycloPetey 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I’m with SB when it comes to how most people state approximations. Regarding your citation, who is this John Henry King (Wikipedia has no article)? It is conceivable that he was sentenced to a term of exactly three hundred days, so I’d like verification to the contrary before that quotation can be accepted as a citation of the approximate-as-literal use.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
If you care to do the math, his complete biography is available in Full View on Google Books. And while you may be correct that people today more often explicitly express the fact that a number has been rounded, that does not mean that other approches are not widespread. --EncycloPetey 02:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I don’t see it; please post the link.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• "I bought a house for 160 grand". Actually it was $158,892 -- that doesn't mean 160,000 has a special idiomatic sense. "The CD was eight dollars". No, it was$7.99. This is just a function of all numbers -- in fact generalisation is actually a function of all language. We don't need to legislate for it, and we probably shouldn't. Ƿidsiþ 16:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• I agree. I'd say this is "clearly widespread use", but even so I think we should delete it (and the rest of the entry). —RuakhTALK 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with Widsith. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• But this isn't a function of all numbers. There are numbers with specific and precise values, and there are numbers with some variation covered, and other number with a wider variation in possible value. The ordinal first does not mean "first or second". The numbers pi and e both have a very precise value, with no room for deviation. And the variability in meaning of three hundred, like other cardinals, is context specific. If someone says "The cost was two dollars", then, yes, there is the possibility that the actual cost was \$1.99. But, if someone says "I have two children", then you have a precise measure with no possibility of 1.99 children. If we're going to define cardinals properly, then this aspect of their meaning deserves to be treated. --EncycloPetey 18:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Your examples are the byproduct of two features of rounding and not of them numbers themselves.
1. When your value is integral (ordinals such as "1st" or count numbers such as "two children") and you round to the ones place you will always to get exactly that amount back. By rounding to the nearest power of 10 you could never round "first" to "second" so that's not a possibility with rounding. If you were rounding to the a power of 2 (common in computing) then you could:)
2. It is uncommon to round to higher place values than your original quantity because generally rounding is used to "simplify" data. If your value is 2 you normally wouldn't round to the nearest tens value, though you could (resulting in 0). An example is in demographic data where "2 children" in a province might get rounded to the nearest hundreds/thousands to become 0.
Amounts such as "504th" and "302 children" could be round to the nearest hundreds easily. Your examples about π and e are a bit spurious because they aren't defined as specific numbers (which is what we're discussing here) and instead by digitless mathematical relationships. --Bequw¢τ 19:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note that it is common usage to employ round numbers in an imprecise sense to indicate approximate cardinality, and it is less common but still ordinary usage to employ large round numbers in a nonspecific sense to indicate any large cardinality; and note well that the qualities of roundness and largeness are subjective and context dependent. Identifying and enumerating those numbers that have been used in these senses is a fruitless pursuit. It would be better to include a usage note with the definitions of such words as "hundred" and "thousand" or, better yet, by reference to an appendix on Numbers. ~ Ningauble 15:28, 14 December 2009 (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, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.

## three hundred

Keep. This is the only correct, non-circumlocuted, way of expressing 300: for instance, three hundreds wouldn't work, neither would hundred three nor hundred threes even though $100 \times 3 = 300$. Even if it were not idiomatic, it would still definitely be useful as a Phrasebook entry, and as an anchor for a whole bunch of Translations. —AugPi (t) 15:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, purely because another entry (what was it? two thousand I think) failed RFD a few months ago. Actually against my personal feelings, as I voted keep for that one. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Addendum, clearly wasn't two thousands that was deleted, as it's a blue link! Mglovesfun (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
keep and add Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets. Quite useful for many languages including Russian. -- Prince Kassad 15:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This class of rule-driven entry seems to be a good fit with the kind of contributions we actually get. The language-specific appendices on number phrases that would be more useful IMHO seem to be beyond the interest or capability of our contributors. We can provide countless hours of semi-gainful translation practice for contributors by having these entries, however unlikely it may be that anyone would look up any individual entry. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete as SOP, replace with {{only in|{{in appendix}}}} if we have one. Re nominator's phrasebook argument: no: this is not a touristy phrase, it's just a numeral. (Wow, Firefox's spellchecker doesn't mind touristy.)​—msh210 (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Umm, yeah... I'll take back the "Phrasebook" part... —AugPi (t) 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Though note that it wasn't me who posted an RFD tag on the three hundred article: that happened about a year ago, but apparently no discussion about it was opened on this page: so I would be the "discussion opener," not the "nominator." —AugPi (t) 17:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
There was already a RFD discussion (now archived at Talk:three hundred), closed as deleted by Mglovesfun on 1 March 2010 (UTC). But the voting resulted at 6 keeps vs. 10 deletes = 10/16 = 62.5% for deletion. The RFD was added on 23 November 2009 by Doremítzwr[1].--Dan Polansky 17:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep outside CFI per translation target: there are several languages that do not tend to form long closed compounds and yet have this term as a solid-written word. --Dan Polansky 17:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
If it is decided to delete this, I propose we create 300 and simply move the translations there. As it is, our entries (for eg 10) list ====Alternative forms==== (eg X, the Roman numeral); we could easily also list "translations of the English word ten" / "translations of the English phrase" (or "term") "three hundred". Example. Alternatively, we could have a ====Translations==== header, and beneath it have a link to the Appendix: "For translations of the English term "three hundred", see Wiktionary:Appendix Such-and-such". If "three hundred" is deleted, these options could supplement msh210's idea about putting a soft redirect at "three hundred"; if it is kept, we could link to "three hundred" from "300". — Beobach 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I lean keep, by the way. — Beobach 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: this entry already failed rfd: Talk:three hundred. -- Prince Kassad 18:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, it was this entry which failed RFD. Who restored it would be the best question. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It was Volants (talkcontribs) (Wonderfool) who restored it with no explanation. Though, I nearly didn't delete this for no consensus the first time round. On reflection, 10 for deletion, 6 against does seem a big enough majority to merit deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
So delete it speedily.​—msh210 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It should have never been deleted in the first place. 62.5% is not consensus, or certainly not in WT:Votes. --Dan Polansky 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we'll have serious problems if we start applying WT:VOTE standards to every discussion we ever have. —RuakhTALK 21:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any serious problems. In RFD, it simply means that there is a pro-keeping bias, in that a term is deleted only if there is consensus for its deletion. An alternative policy would be that a term is kept in RFD only if there is consensus for keeping, but I have not seen this policy stated or actually used. There is no quorum, so the consensus can still consist in three people voting delete. --Dan Polansky 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't simply mean a pro-keeping bias; it means a pro-keeping bias that is as strong as WT:VOTE's bias toward the status quo. I know that you are a strong inclusivist, so that sort of barrier to deletion may not seem like a big deal to you, but you have to keep in mind the Law of Unintended Consequences. As it gets harder to delete things via WT:RFD, people become more likely to use other approaches, such as speedy-deleting, or such as listing at WT:RFV, waiting a month, then declaring the word failed and deleting it. (Very few words get cited within a month, and an already-RFV-failed term has the extra burden that you have to present valid citations upfront, and do so knowing that the term is likely to be RFD'd as soon as you're done.) We already see some behavior of this sort, where a sense gets listed at RFV with the claim that it needs three citations to support its specific wording, or to support some specific distinction from another sense. (This claim is nonsense, or at least, it combines nonsensically with RFV's presumption of deletion; but more than one editor has tried it. Usually in good faith, I think, but the result is pernicious all the same.) —RuakhTALK 00:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I admit that the pro-keeping bias of RFD suits my tendency to support inclusion in RFD. Nonetheless, I should not single-handedly decide the policy that governs RFD anyway. One alternative to 2/3-majoritarian voting in RFD would be to lower the percentage threshold for consensus for deletion in RFD to something else above 50%. I do not think Mglovesfun should be introducing such a lowering through a new precedent in RFD. This would require a 70%-vote, I think, given it would be a meta-vote or vote about voting. Even the threshold 2/3 is hanging in the air, sort of, with people sometimes mentioning 70%.
The adverse effects of the current practice in RFD such as people sending more things to RFV seem fairly harmless: in RFV, one can say "widespread use" for widespread terms or do the attesting job for less clear terms. And I am not sure these RFV-happy behaviors are the consequence of the 2/3 threshold as opposed to, say, 60%; some deletionists keep saying "we don't do names of specific entities" long after a vote has shown otherwise. I am far from sure that lowering the threshold would in any way modify these RFV-happy behaviors.
Speedy deletions would not really do the intended deleting work for entries that at least one admin has eager interest in keeping: the admin can undelete the entry, and then send for regular RFD. --Dan Polansky 09:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
RFD is not a vote, and although, in closing RFDs, I try to do so in accordance with a consensus of commenters, I would not refrain from going against even a majority where I think that the commenters on one side are basing their comments on policy/BCP and the commenters on the other side are not, especially if I don't feel care the issue (or am closing against my own opinion).​—msh210 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I cannot agree. RFD should be based on consensus rather than a judgment call of the closing admin. Current policy should not override votes given in RFD, or else policy application turns inflexible. I especially wholly disagree with an admin closing a nomination as "RFD failed" when a plain majority of voters voted for "keep", regardless how unreasonable their arguments have sounded to the closing admin. --Dan Polansky 17:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is, there's such as thing as bad consensus. I onced joked I'd send more stuff to RFD, but you guys keep getting it wrong. Regarding a need for a majority in order to delete, I support that, as I think it limits the 'tyrany of the majority' tendencies we sometimes experiences. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not a problem with a solution: there is such a thing as a bad unilateral decision and a bad judgment call. Any decision can be bad, regadless of the mechanism that is used to make the decision. I prefer to give the arbitrary power to a group of voters than to a closing admin, especially given that any of the admins can be the closing one.--Dan Polansky 22:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

NB I have copied the translations to 300. Some are bluelinks, and if we delete three hundred, we may wish to delete eg þrjú hundruð as well (but surely not eg триста, as it is one-word). — Beobach 22:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So if three hundred is deleted, what about four hundred, five hundred, six hundred,... two thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand, etc.? —AugPi (t) 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem (well, a problem) with this sort of 'voting' system we have at RFD. Three hundred and four hundred could pass an RFD, while five hundred and six hundred might fail. Not that I have a solution, or even a hint of one, but it is a sort of problem. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it not-so-clever to discuss each cardinal number separately. We should either keep or delete all entries titled X hundred, X thousand and so on. Somebody suggested an appendix as a solution. I wrote as a draft this appendix. If you like the approach, additional appendices could be written for other sets of numbers. Obviously many languages are missing at this stage. If this is a bad idea, it's easy to get rid of. --Hekaheka 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely, the only question that we should ask is - "Is the entry of any use to our users?". I think that it might be - so should probably be kept. SemperBlotto 22:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• I propose a solution to Mglovesfun about numbers without any special linguistic interest: requiring three independent citations (with the number written in full) when creating the page, and requiring a manual creation for such pages. This would prevent the automatic creation of billions of entries. Lmaltier 08:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Huh? Unauthorized automatic creation of billions of entries is already disallowed by the bot policy. --Yair rand (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
But authorized creation of billions of entries is encouraged by the bot policy. -- Prince Kassad 15:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Lmaltier sure, but why propose it to me? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a decision a long time ago to go ahead and keep certain large round figures like this for purpose of example and translation. I think that attitude is better than trying to decide each on grounds of attestation or some other rule that may not be applied as uniformly e.g. to 600 as to 300 and 900 or what have you. Of course attestation is still useful for certain numbers like 720. DAVilla 07:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

closed as kept per consensus -- Prince Kassad 22:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)