Talk:105

105
And so on. Numbers are not words in any language so do not meet CFI. Can someone please nuke these? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say numbers are words in every language, just with a separate orthographical system. But, they seem pretty useless as dictionary entries, esp. given the definitions, and the general infinitude of them. So I'd say delete. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mean numbers like one, two, three or 1, 2, 3 just combinations of numerical characters like this. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly we keep those. But 105 is still a word as far as I can see. Just one that doesn't need a dict definition or entry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to suggest that we figure out a comprehensive list of numbers which do merit entries, create those, then create an edit filter which prevents the rest from being created again. Seems like these shouldn't have to be discussed on a regular basis. - TheDaveRoss 12:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think any string of symbols that has meaning can be called a word. I mean like a reference number for a training or flight booking, FL05YH60D or something. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any great objection to these. But I have got better things to do with my time. Some of them (e.g. 1066, 1943 etc) are also dates, so might have additional definitions. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have added a def to one hundred and one in it idiomatic use = "a great many". There a number of numbers that need such defs. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect the larger ones to an appendix, per my comment at the discussion of "one hundred and twelve, one hundred and eleven", above. bd2412 T 20:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: 1) We cannot accept the lack of space between 1, 0, and 5 as indicating that this is not separate enough for WT:SOP: we would end up with a huge number of trivial entries for no appreciable benefit to the reader. 2) We could make an exception for this item and keep it to show translations for this and thus number word formation in various languages. But then, I would sooner make that exception on 101; we don't need all of 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, etc. Or keep one hundred and one and redirect 101 to it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 101 has a separate, idiomatic meaning. I would keep everything up to 101, and everything idiomatic above that (404, 411, 747, 911, etc.), and redirect anything not having such significance. bd2412 T 20:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with BD2412 here. Numbers under 100 should all be kept because (among other things) some languages (e.g. Hindi) have idiosyncratic terms for every one of them. Benwing2 (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we would want to redirect a large number of trivial digit sequences. But maybe it does not harm. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dan Polansky, I think the numerical sense of 105 and 101 and 1231238.324123 are SOP. And surely the question then becomes where do we stop, since there is an infinity of infinities of numbers, we could fill the world's entire computing space writing entries for all the numbers without even scratching the surface of their totality? If 105, why not 1005, and why not 10005, and so one. There doesn't seem any reason to prefer one over the other. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We could limit ourselves to just "interesting numbers" (See 1729_(number)), primes being a good start, and initially limit our numbers to approximately the number of subatomic particles in the universe, or perhaps the limit should initially be the number in the galaxy. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This may sound over the top to some, but aside from numbers that merit individual entries, I think that we should have an appendix on number formation and redirect the first one million numbers there. If a flagged bot makes the redirects, the operation won't affect any of us. bd2412 T 15:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep all numbers that are either prime, or contain a three in the hundreds position. Equinox ◑ 20:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - was this a spurious effort at a vote to delete? I'm about to do that, and I am not reading your vote as an actual vote to keep. bd2412 T 19:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It was an attempt to make people think about the foolish arbitrariness of any decisions we can make about keeping "some" numbers. In reality I'd prefer anything as high as 105 to be deleted, yes. Equinox ◑ 19:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: We do not need to entirely reinvent the wheel here, since Wikipedia has already done some of this work. The complete list of numerals included in Wikipedia as numerals (i.e., not as years or for some other cultural significance) is:
 * −1, 0, all whole numbers from 1 to 260, then 263, 269, 270, 273, 276, 277, 280, 284, 290, 300, 311, 313, 318, 353, 359, 360, 363, 365, 369, 384, 420, 440, 400, 495, 496, 500, 501, 512, 555, 593, 600, 613, 616, 620, 666, 700, 720, 743, 777, 786, 790, 800, 801, 836, 840, 880, 881, 888, 900, 911, 971, 999, 1000, 1001, 1024, 1089, 1093, 1138, 1289, 1458, 1510, 1701, 1728, 1729, 1987, 2000, 2520, 2875, 3000, 3511, 4000, 4104, 5000, 5040, 6000, 6174, 7000, 7744, 8000, 8128, 8192, 9000, 9999, 10000, 16807, 20000, 24601, 30000, 40000, 50000, 60000, 64079, 65535, 65536, 65537, 69105, 70000, 80000, 90000, 100000, 142857, 144000, 10000000, 100000000, 1,000,000,000, 2147483647, 4294967295, 9814072356, 9223372036854775807
 * If we apply fence-post theory, we can assume that there is some good reason for these numbers to be included in an encyclopedia, and perhaps this translates to a reason for their inclusion in a dictionary. bd2412 T 18:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, here are all the prime numbers between 100 and 1000: 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349, 353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 419, 421, 431, 433, 439, 443, 449, 457, 461, 463, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 521, 523, 541, 547, 557, 563, 569, 571, 577, 587, 593, 599, 601, 607, 613, 617, 619, 631, 641, 643, 647, 653, 659, 661, 673, 677, 683, 691, 701, 709, 719, 727, 733, 739, 743, 751, 757, 761, 769, 773, 787, 797, 809, 811, 821, 823, 827, 829, 839, 853, 857, 859, 863, 877, 881, 883, 887, 907, 911, 919, 929, 937, 941, 947, 953, 967, 971, 977, 983, 991, 997. bd2412 T 19:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dan. - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note I have created Appendix:Formation of numbers. I think that we can safely bot-redirect all numbers from 103 through 999,999 there. bd2412 T 18:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, we've had Appendix:English numerals for some time. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – this is pronounced differently in the US from the UK. (The current Translingual entry apparently uses the US form.) Ƿidsiþ 09:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it pronounced differently as a function of its parts? bd2412 T 12:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No compelling keep argument. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted: adequately dealt with at "Appendix:English numerals". — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)