Appendix talk:Number bases


 * "neganonary" has zero Google hits. Whom are we helping by suggesting that these are real words? Equinox ◑ 21:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A number of the terms here are systematically created neologisms or coinages. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a standardized naming system (like there is for naming chemical elements of arbitrary atomic number).  I think that either leaving the unverified terms as redlinks, or adding asterisks next to those terms to indicate that they are systematically created neologisms, is sufficient for a Wiktionary Appendix.  Saying "either base 16 or base 32" is more consistent than saying "either hexadecimal or duotrigesimal," but having a vocabulary available for number bases can still be interesting and useful.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the unverified terms might confuse Wiktionary users, than could also just remove the wikilinks from those terms, so that users know not to create entries for those terms until there is a wider usage of them. Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is Appendix:LOP for so-called "protologisms" where one could add unattestable words like "neganonary" and this might be a better place for those words. -80.133.110.105 00:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)