Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

According to the sentence "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100...", it is not clear. If it became to use, anything more than 100 could not be included. There are many words that describe the numeral more than 100 in one word (without SOP), see the translation section of thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand, million, ten million which might fail to include. If it only focused on SOP, it should be noticed under SOP section. --Octahedron80 (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added "that are not single words or are sequences of decadic digits", which should ensure thousand is kept. As for ten thousand, that is intended to be excluded, I gather. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is about Chinese 十萬 ten ten-thousand = hundred thousand, 百萬 hundred ten-thousand = million, and 千萬 thousand ten-thousand = ten million? --Octahedron80 (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know since I do not know what makes a single word in Chinese. Good point. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: substantial RfD discussion of this issue is preserved at Talk:105. bd2412 T 18:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And at Talk:one hundred and twelve, Talk:two hundred and twenty-five and Talk:two hundred and one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing small SOP number words instead[edit]

I wonder whether we should rather add wording that creates an exception to idiomaticity requirement for small (0...100) number words and digit sequences. Since, what is now proposed to be excluded is already excluded by the current CFI's non-SOP requirement, perhaps except digit sequences since the single digits could be claimed to be not separate components.

What about adding this to WT:CFI#Idiomaticity:

An attested integer item, whether a number word such as a cardinal or an ordinal or a sequence of digits, that is >= 0 and <= 100 should be kept even if it is not idiomatic. In sequences of digits such as 125, the digits are considered to be separate components for the purpose of idiomaticity, and therefore, the sequences are often not idiomatic.

The wording currently in the vote, for reference:

Numbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100 that are not single words or are sequences of decadic digits should not be included in the dictionary, unless the number, numeral, or ordinal in question has a separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked my proposal. "ordinal" is not in contrast to "number" since it is a short for "ordinal number", and furthermore, there are other number words than cardinal and ordinal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced word formulation with "that is >= 0 and <= 100" for brevity; I hope it is clear enough. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We'd better specify integers, or some joker will think it's a great idea to add 22.75 etc. People never fail to amaze me. Equinox ◑ 13:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I changed "An attested number item" to "An attested integer number item". Yes, there are plenty of jokers around. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC):[reply]
Isn't "integer number" redundant? bd2412 T 16:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"number" removed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added ", and therefore, the sequences are often not idiomatic" to make it clear why the sentence talks about separate components. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1.0 2.0 8.3 are examples that are allowed to be there. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about 1.0 and 2.0. There are infinite possible version numbers, including say 1.3488 beta, but we don't have entries for them. I'd delete the Translingual "version number" senses and keep the English idiomatic senses.
The entry 8.3 is allowed for the filename sense, but it goes without saying that it can't have a sense for the rational number itself. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in my proposal that prevents inclusion of 8.3 as "The naming convention in older MS-DOS and Microsoft Windows computer ..." --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications[edit]

Just seeking some clarifications:

  • Does number refer to a number that is spelled out in words, such as one hundred and five?
  • Does numeral refer to a number that is indicated in digits, such as 105?
  • What is a decadic digit?

— SMUconlaw (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for number vs. numeral: Not unambigously; try to search a related terminological discussion in Beer parlour; there are multiple of them.
As for "decadic digit": I now see that google:"decadic digit" finds close to nothing. The idiomatic term is "decimal digit", it seems: a digit that is decadic as opposed to binary, octal etc, and therefore, one of 0, 1, 2, ..., 9. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have three points, which I set out separately below for clarity:
  1. I'd suggest explaining more clearly that the proposal applies to numbers whether written in words or numerals.
  2. As for decadic digit v. decimal digit, it seems that you and bd2412 have different understandings of what the proposal deals with. Bd2412 took the reference to decadic digit to mean that powers of 10 greater than 100 (at least up to some set limit) should be included in the Dictionary. On the other hand, according to your explanation, decimal digit means any digit in a decimal counting system. So does the proposal refer to (so-called) decadic digits or decimal digits?
  3. Finally, the proposal currently states: "Numbers […] over 100 that are not single words or are sequences of decimal digits should not be included in the dictionary […]" (emphasis added). Does this mean that all numbers over 100 (1) that are single words (e.g., thousand, million, billion) should be included; and those (2) that are sequences of digits used in the base-10 counting system (e.g., 123,456, 98,765, 10,000, 1,000) should be excluded unless otherwise meeting CFI? The use of are not followed by are seems slightly confusing.
— SMUconlaw (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that expressions like one thousand, one million, and one billion are effectively alternative forms of thousand, million, and billion, perhaps they are okay. I note, however, that we have trillion, quadrillion, etc., but don't have one trillion or one quadrillion. bd2412 T 04:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SMUconlaw: Please check google:"decimal digit" and “decimal digit”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. to see whether my explanation was correct, or at least customary. Furthermore, I dropped "decimal"/"decadic" from the vote page lest we end up with hexadecimal sequences of digits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roman numerals[edit]

Will it also affect Roman numerals? Basically, the Roman numerals can be written from 1 (I) to 3999 (MMMCMXCIX). However, there really are more symbols that can be written more than 3999: M/I̅/ↀ=1000, V̅/ↁ=5000, X̅/ↂ=10000, L̅/ↇ=50000, C̅/ↈ=100000, etc. A problem is whether it can include 400 (CD) 900 (CM) since they are special cases. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "decimal" from the vote page: we do not want to have hexadecimal sequences, and the removal should deal with arbitrarily large Roman numerals such as MMMCMXCIX as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use ≥ ≤ instead of >= <=[edit]

I'd prefer using "that is ≥ 0 and ≤ 100" instead of "that is >= 0 and <= 100".

Reason: traditional math symbols instead of ASCII replacements. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Adding handing of numbers"[edit]

"Voting on: Adding handing of numbers and numerals to WT:CFI."

Is this normal English? I guess "handling" is meant here. Or maybe we could delete the whole sentence altogether. It's not part of any of the two proposals. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected to "handling", which is what I meant. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers,_numerals,_and_ordinals&oldid=49611087"