Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Numbers, numerals, and ordinals

Voting on: Adding handling of numbers and numerals to WT:CFI.

Proposal 1:

Expanding WT:CFI#Idiomaticity with the following, placing it after the paragraph starting with "Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words...":

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. In sequences of digits such as 125, the digits are considered to be separate components for the purpose of idiomaticity, and therefore, the sequences are often not idiomatic.

Proposal 2:

Adding the following text to WT:CFI, to a new heading "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals":

Numbers, numerals, and ordinals

Numbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100 that are not single words or are 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.

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support proposal 1

  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support - we need something on this. bd2412 T 13:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dan Polansky (talk) I prefer proposal 1: we already exclude sum of parts items, so we only need something to ensure additional inclusion. By contrast, proposal 2 ensures additional exclusion, which is in fact redundant to what we already do in CFI. That said, pragmatically, proposal 2 is probably going to work as well, so I abstain on it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
    I disagree that the proposal 2 is redundant to what we already do in CFI. If the proposal 2 fails, we might have to discuss about keeping some entries like 101, one hundred and one and one thousand and one. Not all sum of parts items get deleted. Some are kept as "non-idiomatic translation targets". Numbers like twenty-three itself (which will be kept if the proposal 1 passes) are basically NITTs too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think there would be much discussion: one hundred and one contains "A great many; numerous" as a sense, and is therefore kept as idiomatic, per current CFI. Ditto for one thousand and one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Mistrz (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support Ƿidsiþ 10:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  10. Support DonnanZ (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 1

  1. Oppose - DaveRoss 13:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Abstain on proposal 1

Support proposal 2

  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support, per above. bd2412 T 13:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Equinox ◑ 21:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support - DaveRoss 13:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support DonnanZ (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 2

  1. Oppose I realized I actually oppose. This exclusion rule does not need to be added, I think, since it is covered by sum of parts terms being excluded except for a partially specified set of exceptions. Proposal 1 provides that numbers 0 to 100 are an exception to be kept; an addition of proposal 2 is redundant. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I see no reason to exclude them. Ƿidsiþ 10:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
    No reason to exclude any of them? How about 52,573,904? Or seven hundred and fourteen-thousand, three-hundred and six? bd2412 T 19:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Abstain on proposal 2

Decision

Passed.

  • proposal 1: 10-1-0 (90.91%) (passed)
  • proposal 2: 9-2-0 (81.82%) (passed)

Edited WT:CFI accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia