Talk:one hundred one

RFD discussion: December 2023–June 2024
As stated here, I've recently learnt these pages (multiword, higher-than-100) are breaking CFI (per this formal vote). That means we should delete them, no? MedK1 (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete in compliance with WT:CFI, unless there is an figurative sense (variant of, though I've not heard it used this way?), in which case the numeral sense should be replaced by the figurative sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an American form, apparently. Not living in America, I can't verify that. DonnanZ (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Word0151 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as per CFI, add usage note to and to explain British vs. American usage in these cases. (For the record, I've heard from an elementary school teacher that you shouldn't say "one hundred and one", as "and" is used for separating whole numbers from the decimal point [as in "three and fourteen hundredths" for 3.14] only.) CitationsFreak (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would keep per . hundred and one is a redirect, and we don't have one-oh-one. We probably don't need any other odd numbers above one hundred, only whole hundreds, though 111, 911 and 999 are valid ones. I think hundred and one can be idiomatic: "I have a hundred and one things to do". DonnanZ (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect hundred and one to which has a figurative sense or, perhaps even better, make hundred and one the lemma since people often say a hundred and one as Donnanz points out. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * hundred and one was redirected in 2005, the early days, but can be undone, of course. We also have, (shock, horror) . DonnanZ (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per CFI. &mdash; excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 03:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * one hundred one deleted as not in compliance with WT:CFI. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)