Talk:mid hundreds

RFV discussion
A number between 134 and 166? Who determines this? Equinox ◑ 15:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, I added RFVs to the two in the subheader. The specificity is silly, but if they weren't specific, we'd have to RFD them. They'll go to the gibbet either way. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The terms inherently imply an unspecified number, and the current definition builds on the rationale that there are three terms, and the scale between 100 and 200 can be split in three parts with the limits being 133.333... and 166.666..., and the given definitions are rounded up or down from that. If it seems to be more appropriate to have a less specific definition, another alternative for low hundreds may be "an unspecified number between 100 and 199 that is rather close to 100 than 200". Or, as with dozens, "a large number".
 * I also noted an issue of "criteria for inclusion" on my talk page, whereof I think this has "clearly widespread use", which can be seen on googling low hundreds and high hundreds. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The terms are in clearly widespread use. Whether specific boundaries can be stated in the definitions is unclear, but those stated make sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * These terms are the sum of their parts, anyway; one can also say "temperatures will be in the mid seventies (Fahrenheit)" or "his approval rating was in the low thirties", etc. New York Magazine has "A counter at the exhibit, set to zero on March 8, is now in the low three thousands." I agree with Metaknowledge that this should be listed on RFD if it passes RFV. - -sche (discuss) 17:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought mid hundreds meant an interval hundreds wide, centered on 500. I guess it would depend on context, eh? DCDuring TALK 17:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Or in degrees Fahrenheit 105 degrees ± 2, other interpretations being fatal, either quickly or slowly. DCDuring TALK 17:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the string of words is in widespread use- but using what definition? The problem is that low, mid, and high are relative terms, with their exact meaning depending on context, and on the conventional expectations of scale for the type of thing being measured. The current "definition" is a rule of thumb, not a definition. It may work for many cases, but it's not inherent in the meaning of the term.
 * It's already got two choices in the definition, but it would need more to be comprehensive: for instance, it's entirely possible that "hundreds" might be in opposition to "hundred-ten's", instead of "two-hundreds", so that low hundreds might mean 100-103 (or thereabouts). Also, if you split the categories, low mid and high mid might reduce the range of low, mid and high.
 * I think all one can say for sure is that low is lower than mid and high, mid is lower than high and higher than low, and high is higher than mid and low (try saying that ten times fast!). Attaching numbers to these is making them seem more precise than they probably are in most people's usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the given numbers in the "definition" makes seem appear inappropriately precise, so I think it's a good idea to change the phrases into something that emphasizes the relative differences from the other entries. For low hundreds, perhaps it could be something like this: "an unspecified number between 100 and 199 that is rather close to 100 than 200, as opposed to mid hundreds and high hundreds", but perhaps there are other suggestions? "Hundreds" in this sense may theoretically refer to 100-109 or 100-900, which may deserve mentioning, but I haven't seen any such usage. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've used this latter suggestion in those pages now, but further comments are still welcome. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Closed as resolved. The definitions have been made less specific. — Ungoliant (Falai) 12:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)