Talk:one hundred and twelve

one hundred and twelve, one hundred and eleven
We hardly need these. Besides, the translations seem to be for 110 in both entries, except in the case Hungarian which a user kindly fixed. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Striking, as nobody else seems to have a problem with writing out every number. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unstriking. Someone may want to delete this; admitted, people are busy creating the dictionary. These are sum of parts entries; the question is, do we make an exception for numbers and how high can the numbers be? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * They should go up to four hundred and seventy-three. Equinox ◑ 07:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The anon is hard at word at adding more. Recent additions to Category:English cardinal numbers are two hundred and two, two hundred and one, one hundred and ninety-nine, one hundred and ninety-eight, one hundred and ninety-seven, one hundred and ninety-six, one hundred and ninety-five, one hundred and ninety-four, one hundred and ninety-three, one hundred and ninety-two.
 * Delete. This has to stop somewhere. I am ok with some sum of parts terms to show the compound number word construction but having the full set from 100 to 199 and beyond seems an overkill to me, and in any case, these are SOP so there is a CFI-based rationale for deletion. I have notified the anon at User talk:126.111.39.122. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete anything higher than four hundred and seventy-three. Equinox ◑ 07:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why 473? Pur ple back pack 89  04:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: certainly at least keep to 200. Pur ple back pack 89  04:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Aren't these SoPs anyway? four hundred and twelve, or any other number in the hundreds. Although, I don't know where my stance is on these, because there are a lot of languages it can translate to where their words are not SoP. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect all numbers over one hundred to an appendix describing how names of numbers are formed by stating the number of thousands, then the number of hundreds, then the numbers of tens and ones. bd2412 T 19:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good solution. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need all individual numbers above two hundred at the most, and round hundreds thereafter. There may be a case for nine hundred and ninety-nine and thousand and one or one thousand and one (why is there an entry for thousand one and not the others?). DonnanZ (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note I have created Appendix:Formation of numbers. I think that we can safely bot-redirect all numbers from one hundred and two through nine hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine there. bd2412 T 18:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, we already have Appendix:English numerals. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The material that I put together at Appendix:Formation of numbers can be merged into Appendix:English numerals and section-redirected there. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 14:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No compelling keep argument. DCDuring TALK 17:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 14:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)