Talk:two hundred and one
RFD discussion: November 2016
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
And also the following sum-of-parts number words:
- two hundred and two (202)
- two hundred and three (203)
- two hundred and four (204)
- two hundred and five (205)
- two hundred and six (206)
- two hundred and seven (207)
- two hundred and eight (208)
- two hundred and nine (209)
- two hundred and ten (210)
- two hundred and eleven (211)
- two hundred and twelve (212)
- two hundred and thirteen (213)
- two hundred and fourteen (214)
- two hundred and fifteen (215)
- two hundred and sixteen (216)
- two hundred and seventeen (217)
- two hundred and eighteen (218)
- two hundred and nineteen (219)
- two hundred and twenty (220)
This is a follow-up on #two hundred and twenty-five, later archived at Talk:two hundred and twenty-five. Sum of parts number words. We may keep smaller sum of parts number words and round ones, but the above should not be kept.
A related discussion is at Talk:one hundred and twelve. Another somewhat related is at Talk:105.
Note: I did not tag them all with RFD tag. It seems their being listed here in RFD should suffice.
--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is further discussion needed? I read the previous referenced discussion as consensus to delete all such instances. In any case, delete per precedent. bd2412 T 16:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all large sum-of-parts numbers that have no special meaning. Mihia (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, for reasons already stated in previous discussions. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, as discussed before. — Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
These are all work of one anon. The content of the entry is the number and the Hungarian translation, which seem to be closed compounds, like kétszázhúsz for 220. Could we suggest to this individual something more constructive to do, such as adding entries for the Hungarian closed compound numerals? Most of them are currently missing. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Hekaheka's idea for the Hungarian entries is a good one, but in English we don't really need entries for numbers above one hundred, apart from round hundreds, and noteworthy ones like thousand and one, and nine hundred and ninety-nine maybe. DonnanZ (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. bd2412 T 18:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)