Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:9000. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:9000, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:9000 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:9000 you have here. The definition of the word Talk:9000 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:9000, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Surely you jest? They're commonly used for page numbers in prefaces and the like. Of course, there's something not quite right if there is a page mmmm. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
Oddly enough, deleting the translingual section reshuffles the Lua garbage collector so that the module errors on the page would vanish again. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
bullshit entry but keep. As someone pointed out earlier, it would be extremely weird to have a preface with this many page numbers. Programmatically generate all of these so that we can take the fun out of it for whomever is creating these. We need to vote on this issue and set a cap or a limit on these if we haven't done so already. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 05:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This has a "separate idiomatic sense", but I'm mot sure whether to keep or delete this per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals: it hinges on whether the "separate idiomatic sense" that makes a number keep-able has to be Translingual or not. (Translingual number senses could be added to some entries, such as 8514, if having a sense in another language is enough.) - -sche(discuss)01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Is it translingual or just English? Now, I've seen '555' for LOL in English posts, albeit on a Thailand-related forum. If that had been a newsgroup, I think we would be wondering whether to promote that to multilingual.
Strong delete with a potential exception - For the sake of consistency, and per this entry, each Roman numeral would need to account for every number ad infinitum, which is an intrinsic impossibility. However, I feel it may be acceptable for the entry to remain if there were some citations added to provide substantial instances of use.
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals says sequences of 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"; I suppose the question here is whether the "separate idiomatic sense" has to be Translingual like the numbers are. Even then, the vote would have us keep something like clx — where, as an aside, {{mul-symbol}} displays the headword of the Symbol awkwardly bigger than the headword of the number for some reason, and bigger than mlx's headwords. (Also an issue: in mim, the number is listed as a symbol, inconsistent with clx.) (Anyway, I suppose the rationale is that if you look up clxi and find no entry, you know you either have to look elsewhere or look it up element by element, but if you look up clx (which you found as a numeral, and you find our entry defining it as a symbol, you may not realize that definition doesn't cover the use you're looking at.) - -sche(discuss)18:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
You must've missed my links to clx and mlx, which have separate idiomatic senses even in Translingual. The other entries like 1992 and 1337 seem to mostly have separate idiomatic senses in e.g. English. - -sche(discuss)19:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I was actually only referring to the Translingual entries and, in particular, only to the numbers but not to any other signs that they have got. It does not matter whether there would possibly be other meanings in English because the Translingual entries lack them. HeliosX (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Also directing this at -sche, as I stated, any deletion request box placed into the entries with more than just one Translingual symbol refers solely to the symbol below there. Hence, this does not affect any other symbols in Translingual. HeliosX (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
So you only want to delete the portion of clx that defines it as "A Roman numeral representing one-hundred and sixty (160)", but not the "Symbol for the centilux"? I understood that part, but I was thinking Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals says that even the numeral portion does not need to be deleted if there is some other "idiomatic sense". But upon re-reading the vote, I now see that it is supposed to be the numeral itself that has an idiomatic sense, and although I suspect an idiomatic sense would typically acquire another part of speech and so allowances might have to be made for that, I do see this means a mere homograph like clx isn't covered. I will switch my votes for those. - -sche(discuss)03:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 666 is about as idiomatic as a number gets. I remember an old Saturday Night Live sketch where they found a body with the head upside down and no one could figure out why the forehead was marked with "999". The joke wouldn't have worked if 666 was just a number. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Mostly deleted, per the discussion above and the linked-to binding vote, except 666 and 555 where the numeral section lists other senses and the entry thus meets the voted-on criteria. I also tentatively left 500 alone, as it got no specific responses beyond my own weak comment, because it has a lot of translations listed and so might pass on something akin to a THUB argument, and in any case should be discussed (either now or in a fresh RFD) on its own merits, which are different from those of the myriad Latin numerals. - -sche(discuss)03:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
