Talk:2.0

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.

---

1.0

2.0

3.0

Oh c'mon, please tell me you're joking. -- Liliana • 21:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, quite funny though. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See google news archives "Obama 1.0 OR 2.0". It looks to me as if the construction is used as a postpositiive adjective. I might stop at [[2.0]] though and do usage notes for both. DCDuring TALK 22:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. They have meaning beyond the sum of their parts. Especially the way the decimal is placed, they are not intuitive to non-native speakers. ---> Tooironic 22:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I'm not sure that older native speakers quite get it either. But is this Translingual? It would certainly qualify as English and would seem to meet CFI as meaning "version X.Y of" what is modified. Rather than having entries in non-intuitive "X.Y" format, having the two most common forms seems adequate to me, however logically unsatisfying or unsystematic it might seem or be. DCDuring TALK 22:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete: formed according to a set pattern, and not language, merely a certain use of numbers; we do not have or need entries at 1 and 2 saying "number for the first, second house in a street". Does the creator not realise how versioning works? The zero can be meaningful and is not always zero, e.g. Windows 7 is version 6.1. Equinox ◑ 20:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But numbers are a part of language too. And quite often the things which are described as "2.0" are not the things a reason person would expect to have different versions, e.g. Obama 2.0. ---> Tooironic 21:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The RFDed definition is purely for technology version numbers; your proposed additional sense is not there. (Incidentally it's just struck me that the defs are wrong: 3.0 is the third major version; the first three might have been, say, 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0.) Equinox ◑ 21:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my "keep" vote above. I have added and cited English (postpositive) adjective entries at [[1.0]] and [[2.0]] that seem valid to me. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's no longer clear to me what's nominated for deletion, and which sections the above comments refer to. I think it would be a good idea to delete the translingual sections though. As to the English definitions, it hardly makes sense to define changes in a person as a “second major version”. DAVilla 19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep 1.0 and 2.0 in any case, as they heve bled out of the engineering world and into ironic commentary. bd2412 T 15:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep at least 2.0: it has a certain meaning that is not transparent, it has good references, and I have seen it several times personally. It is clearly a part of modern English and not a joke at all. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Kept 1.0 and 2.0: inconclusive. Deleted 3.0. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)