Talk:two hundred

RFD discussion: January 2019

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.

---

two hundred

Moved to Requests for deletion/English.  --Lambiam 07:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January–September 2019

The following information passed a request 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.

---

two hundred

Can be regarded as 'multiple of parts'. Over 100. John Cross (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

eight hundred

Multiple of parts, over 100. John Cross (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

nine hundred

multiple of parts, over 100... unless this is about two and a half turns... John Cross (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

eleven hundred

Multiple of parts. John Cross (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

three hundred

Multiple of parts. Could conceivably be kept as translation target. John Cross (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep all Purplebackpack89 12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect all speedily to "Appendix:English numerals" unless any have an idiomatic sense, as per the policy previously put in place: see "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals". — SGconlaw (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of these would be worthy translation targets, but on their own merit the should probably be deleted per the rule SG linked. - TheDaveRoss 13:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep two hundred, three hundred, ..., nine hundred. Some of them will be per WT:THUB. Now, the items to apply for WT:THUB need to be looked for, but I believe can be found. For instance, pl:dwieście is not obvious from pl:sto, and cs:dvě stě is not obvious from cs:sto; it is not obvious why it is not "dvě sta". Or taking pl:dziewięćset, the inflection in pl:sto does not provide anything for me to guess pl:dziewięćset. If WT:THUB would not apply, I would support keeping these multiples of "hundred" as an exception to the passed rule; this is a small set of round numerals and I think the reader is better off our having these entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep two hundred per Semitic (where a dual of "hundred" is typically used) and certain Slavic languages, per Dan. eleven hundred might also be kept as a translation target. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In that case, a translation hub exception needs to be added to "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals", and it needs to be clarified exactly which numerals the exception applies to (for example, "200" but not "729"?). — SGconlaw (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The easy solution is to rescind proposal 2 of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals as redundant to proposal 1 of that vote; that is, remove "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals" as covered by "An attested integer word (such as twenty-three or twenty-third) or a decimal numeral (sequence of 0, ..., 9 digits) that is ≥ 0 and ≤ 100 should be kept even if it is not idiomatic. [...]" --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

All of these are subject to the results of this vote which means they should be deleted. - TheDaveRoss 00:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals should prevail over WT:THUB, which was also voted on. It seems to me that the supporters of proposal 2 in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals (which I opposed) did not realize there could be unintended consequences of what they supported; I did not realize the unintended consequences either and I merely pointed out to redundancy. The idea would be, don't add rules that you do not strictly need since you are a mere human, and humans in general are poor at assessing unintended consequences of rules. Hence common law and "override all rules", less aptly called "ignore all rules". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Not being a registered user, my vote probably doesn't count. But I just looked it up. I thought it was spelt "two-hundred", also would've considered "twohundred", never would've guessed it was "two hundred". So it's helpful for non-natives. Also: "wiktionary is not paper". 2.203.201.61 20:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• RFD kept: no consensus to delete. There are 2 "keep all", and there are 2 deletes that I count as bold: John Cross and TheDaveRoss. SGconlaw has "redirect" but even if that were counted as a delete, these would be 3 deletes. Lingo does not indiate any explicit delete, and makes an explicit keep on two hundred. Over 7 months have elapsed from the nomination start. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  Oops, I did not really vote keep on eleven hundred. I am voting keep on eleven hundred now, and if someone wants to have it deleted, let them create a new separate nomination, where, depending on the discussion (WT:THUB?), I am considering an abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)