Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/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...":

Proposal 2:

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

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/May#CFI and sum of part numbers
• User talk:Daniel Carrero#Numbers in the CFI
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals
• Talk:105
• Talk:one hundred and twelve
• Talk:two hundred and twenty-five
• Talk:two hundred and one

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)

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

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)

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)

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)