Talk:1700s

RFD discussion: July–September 2017

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

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.

---

Decades

For example, 1370s, 2040s, 1790s. Do we really need these? We could have an infinite number of these. Theoretically, we could also include the 9540s and the 2670s and the 193259020s (though most of those are probably not attested, but hey, ONE DAY they might be lol). Couldn't these decades all be explained perfectly by the entry -s? It's so formulaic; it's basically like {insert number here}0s. Then you have the BC decades. Plus I've also seen them written with 's at the end too, which means we have to repeat all of these countless decades with the alternative forms 's. It's just infinite. It's almost like having addition problems as entries. (If there was already a discussion about these decades, I'm not aware) PseudoSkull (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Partial keep. Some cultures don't use the Gregorian calendar or even the decimal system so "1790" may not make sense to them. I would however restrict this to the decades that are most commonly found in texts. At most this should be the 00s to the 2010s. BC decades (1240s BC) would be SoP. Future decades are generally not referred to this way. 402 pages (00s to 2010s and 00's to 2010's) are not an issue for Wiktionary to handle. W3ird N3rd (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

We should keep all those that are actually used. I can see plenty of hits for (deprecated template usage) 2030s for example. Send any dodgy ones to RfV if you like. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

But why? Should we also have entries for 2030, 2031, 2032, ... as well? It just doesn't seem like these Gregorian decades belong here. Wikipedia already describes such decades in detail, too. I also know that most of these decades are used and attestable, but that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking, should we have them? Are they a clutter of space? Aren't they extremely repetitive? Isn't this information stuff that people could easily find by going elsewhere, or by going to -s, or by visiting Wikipedia's articles about the decades? Similarly, we shouldn't have entries for 1^1, 1^2, 1^3, ... PseudoSkull (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Semperblotto, granted, a few future decades are possibly seeing some genuine usage as well. But beyond the 2100s it probably won't be much. That would mean 420 pages tops, no issue.

PseudoSkull, why not? Do these pages bother you? Any decade that has no real usage would be RfV so they are not endless. For numbers you can go to Wikipedia and you will find silly years like 2098. W3ird N3rd (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, since these are generated in an entirely predictable manner, the only purpose of having them here is in case someone encounters XXX0s and does not know what it means. In that case, it scarcely matters whether some particular instance is satisfactorily attested according to Wiktionarians' Internet searching. Even if it isn't, someone might still encounter it. If, on the other hand, the perceived purpose is to document existence of usage rather than be a look-up facility, I vote delete all, since basically who cares whether some individual XXX0s is attested to Wiktionary standards. Mihia (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep all: I don't see how these violate CFI. And just because we keep these doesn't mean we automatically have to immediately create others. Purplebackpack89 01:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per the decision to treat large numbers as SOP. This doesn't seem wildly different to me. It might help to have such entries when there is potential for ambiguity: something like "the 1700s" could, theoretically, mean one of four things: AD 1700-1799, AD 1700-1709, 1799-1700 BC, or 1709-1700 BC. But dates like this seems fairly transparent to me. There's also the fact that their meaning is heavily reliant on context. The 1700s are not necessarily unique to the Gregorian calendar, so we could end up with all sorts of definitions, unless we choose to be vague, in which case the definitions would be entirely SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@User:Andrew Sheedy "The 1700s" still has a predictable meaning, i.e., any XX00s may refer either to the decade or to the century, so those should still be deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

True, so maybe we should have an entry for -00s as well as 00s. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

-s should mention various sense, if there are any and if they are attested. ATM it only has the decade sense (1990s, 2000s). If there's also an attested century sense (1800s, 1900s) (rare? colloquial? proscribed?), it could be added. Same for AD (or CE as same prefer, i.e. Christian Era) versus BC (or BCE, i.e. Before Christian Era) years. -84.161.24.251 21:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Partial Keep - I would like to keep the last thirty decades (or so) and the next two. John Cross (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, one thing I don't like about your idea is that this system would have to be updated every ten years or become outdated. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep them all, or delete them all. It is silly to have an entry 1980s which is as a word often used, and not having 1770s. --78.3.147.117 17:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete all as SOP. The entry -s already has this sense: "Used to form a word referring to a specific decade in the Gregorian calendar. Appended to the first year of the decade." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete There all sum of parts, and it would be an infinite amount of decades if we included all. Leucostictes (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Decision: This is a difficult discussion to close, because there are a variety of possibilities and ranges being tossed around. There is a clear consensus to delete a substantial proportion of these. I also note for the record that there are 198 pages apparently falling into this category. So here is what I am going to do. I am going to delete all decades prior to 1700s. The cutoff is somewhat arbitrary, but reflects the "last thirty decades (or so)" referenced by John Cross. There is at least some historical justification for this, in that the acceleration of history in more recent decades has made the decades themselves more distinct. I am also going to proactively create an -00s entry, and redirect all century years there. bd2412 T 02:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)