Talk:nineteen sixty-eight

nineteen sixty-eight
Was suggested above that "I think nineteen sixty-eight needs to go". It seems to me that, excluding the question of attestation, any year can be known by a number. Also, just because it is written out in words, is this more dictionary-worthy than 1968? Note that nineteen does not have an entry for the year 19 AD even though in my opinion, it's more justifiable as it's a single word not two consecutive words (which debatably, do function as a single unit anyway). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And, just so you know, we cover this very topic at Appendix:Year pronunciation. delete -- Liliana • 21:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can set up a larger appendix to redirect all year names to, where we can also provide a table of translations. bd2412 T 23:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we nominating the 80+ other entries that were created at the same time (nineteen eighteen through nineteen ninety-nine)? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've now tagged with rfd (linking to this section) all the years listed at [[special:prefixindex/nineteen]] except nineteen hundred (worth discussing separately IMO, because the year is but one sense in a larger entry) and nineteen hundreds (worth discussing separately IMO also). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be a blanket proposition, and I suggest that my above proposal for an appendix would apply to all these. I would make an exception for nineteen eighty-four, which I believe has an idiomatic meaning deriving from the book of the same name. bd2412 T 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My aim was to use this as a 'test case' and nominate more year names if this succeeds. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Year names and numbers are systematically produced by a simple system. No point cataloguing them independently, any collection will always be infinitely incomplete. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete SOP, this is how year names are formed in English, nothing lexical here. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, including the relevant senses at nineteen hundred and nineteen eighty-four (but not the other senses). --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, will delete the rest at some point, unless someone else does it before me. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)