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.
- Keep, for now. This is worth a BP discussion, rather than recommending this one entry for deletion, as there are many similar. That's procedurally; substantively, I think (though I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise) keep any found without context to prove it's a Roman numeral (though I'm not sure what would qualify), as people will look it up. (Note my previously stated similar opinion about such chemical formulas as include no numbers, symbols, or sub- or superscripts, like KCN.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's a great idea. Numbers fall under a sort of compromise anyway. Do we want 31 also? The pronunciation in French is not obvious since et is sometimes used and sometimes not. Certainly some numbers like 360 we can find reason to include, and some we probably never will, but the rest is just compromise as there's a rather course line that's not worth fighting over. DAVilla 05:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose that we keep this one, and perhaps the first few thousand Roman numerals on the basis that they may refer to calendar years; and redirect the rest of those which are not single letter forms or coincidental words in other languages to Appendix:Roman numerals, so users can figure that out for themselves. bd2412 T 15:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)