Talk:4649

RFV
--Connel MacKenzie 06:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete --Williamsayers79 15:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * May be good; I can't tell if it is citable in use (mentions are easy); it will take a fluent native speaker (I can't skim google returns in Japanese the way I can in English ;-. It does make a great deal of sense. (more than l33t) Robert Ullmann 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that imply the language heading should be ==Japanese==? --Connel MacKenzie 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is very common as a Japanese "abbreviation" (I’m not sure that abbreviation is the best word). 4 = yo; 6 = ro; 4 = shi, 9 = ku ... yoroshiku (よろしく) ("I’m glad to make your acquaintance"). On Google, it gets over 140,000 hits. —Stephen 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me we should treat it as a textspeak-style contration, e.g. the English m8 and cul8r. Thryduulf 18:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's real, like txtspk or leet. I even found a cite for it. Cynewulf 19:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ...which brings us back to the question of whether it is English or not. I'd close the Japanese portion of this RFV on the strength of Stephen and Cynewulf's assurances that it is common in Japanese, but there's still an English section on the page... — Beobach972 02:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops, someone added the Japanese section, instead of correcting the L2 language heading? (I don't think anyone contests its existence in Japanese.)  --Connel MacKenzie 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * rfvfailed for English (left as Japanese) Cynewulf 18:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September 2017
'The number four thousand six hundred and forty-nine', do we really need to keep this sense? It is not even a sentence. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedied Translingual. Equinox ◑ 15:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, WT:CFI: "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." --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)