Talk:99.9%

99.9%
Not Translingual. This term is used only in English. -- Liliana • 19:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also SOP. Any non-literal meaning is hyperbolic rather than lexical. Delete. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So is 110%. DAVilla 07:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but if 99.9% is used only (or, as far as CFI-meeting cites go, only) as a proportion of something (as in I'm 99.9% sure) whereas 110% is used alone (as in the the usex given, We busted our tails and won, we gave 110%), then the latter is more likely idiomatic (as the literal meaning of we gave 110% is, well, nothing: it makes no sense. You can't say I ate 110% without saying what you ate 110% of). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's just non-literal use as opposed to idiomatic use. Could also be used in the forms 99% or 99.99%, and so on. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which would be fine if they were cited. RFV. DAVilla 17:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: it's a numerical estimate, like telling the boss you've done about 75% of a piece of work. Equinox ◑ 20:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Three quarters does sound like a numerical estimate, and would probably not be misinterpreted in any language. Apparently, the 99% phenomenon is special in English, and 99.9% of the population uses it as hyperbole rather than numerical estimation. DAVilla 06:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Actarus (Prince d&#39;Euphor) 09:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)