Talk:seven hundred and fifty

Translations need to be split into adj and n. All are currently under noun; I have done Fr and It already.


 * Erm, why do we have an entry for this number in particular? -dmh 04:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do we have an entry for this number in particular? Roofing54 23:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Numbers may be worthless in English, but are quite helpful for their translations. One can't predict how this is said in the various languages by merely adding up "seven", "hundred" and "fifty". — Vildricianus 12:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All numbers up to infinity would seem to qualify by that kind of usefulness. Can't have all of them, so maybe certain regular numbers should be regarded as some kind of Phrasebook entry? Kappa 12:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Could we create something akin to an Appendix for these? Or something on a subpage of Phrasebook? — Vildricianus 12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If we have this number, where's one hundred and fifty, two hundred and fifty, three hundred and fifty, four hundred and fifty, five hundred and fifty, six hundred and fifty, eight hundred and fifty and nine hundred and fifty. We apparantly don't have those, yet we have seven hundred and fifty. Roofing54 14:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see why we wouldn't include all these. I have expressed my opinion before on such matter. — Vildricianus 15:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer something like Appendix:Numbers (rolled back to earlier version) rather than Phrasebook. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see 1-30, 40, 50,...90, 100, 200, ...900, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000,...10,000, 100,000, 100,000,000 and 100,000,000,000. But the various cominations?  I can even see 101.  Although seven hundred fifty is well attested by a quick google search, none of the meanings distinguish it as idiomatic.  Not just the sum-of-its-parts, but formulatic sum-of-its-parts.  Any translations of it are equally formulaic, no?  Do we have an appendix for numbers and their translation "formulas" floating around anywhere?
 * Not that I'm reserving comments on idiomatic numbers: 42 (ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything) 57 (Heinz varieties), 13 (baker's dozen) etc.
 * If it is decided that this should be kept, then a 'bot should be used to fill out (with formulaic translations) 1-1,000. (Or 2,000, as Vild suggested.)  Likewise, the translation entries would be 'bot entered.
 * While it is hard to see the usefulness of such entries, it is harder to see the harm in keeping them. I'm not particularly incined to do that bot work, myself.  Even if I were, I'd have to wait to see what you all decide here about them.  And I'd have to wait for the full table describing the formulas for translation.
 * --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Partly agree. The round numbers deserve full entries. The ones in between should really go in an appendix, though. — Vildricianus 17:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Partially agree. I suggest entries for one, two...nineteen, twenty, thirty..ninety, hundred, thousand, million, billion, trillion, and of course point, each with links to an appendix including explanations of, eg eleven hundred and eleven, one thousand one hundred and eleven, one thousand one hundred eleven, one one one one, etc and probably an explanation that in most of Europe the , is used as a decimal point, while in English we use the . . --Enginear 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. 101 ("one oh one"), 180 ("one eighty") are interesting, this is not. 10,000 for its translation to Chinese, but not this one. Davilla 13:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure, though. The "round numbers" trick may not always work. I suggest the following:
 * Everything from 1-100;
 * 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190;
 * 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000;
 * 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900;
 * 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10,000;
 * 11,000, 12,000, 13,000, 14,000, 15,000, 16,000, 17,000, 18,000, 19,000;
 * 20,000, 30,000, 40,000, 50,000, 60,000, 70,000, 80,000, 90,000, 100,000;
 * 110,000, 120,000, 130,000, 140,000, 150,000, 160,000, 170,000, 180,000, 190,000;
 * 200,000, 300,000, 400,000, 500,000, 600,000, 700,000, 800,000, 900,000, 1,000,000;
 * 1,100,000, 1,200,000, 1,300,000, 1,400,000, 1,500,000, 1,600,000, 1,700,000, 1,800,000, 1,900,000
 * 2,000,000, 3,000,000, 4,000,000, 5,000,000, 6,000,000, 7,000,000, 8,000,000, 9,000,000, 10,000,000;
 * And so forth until a point that it's not useful anymore. I hope you see the reasoning behind this selection. Perhaps this bit should move to Wiktionary talk:CFI. — Vildricianus 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, and also there should be some special consideration for weird numbers of significance like 512 (a common kb/Mb measure) and 666 (the Beast). bd2412 T 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean 616?
 * There is always consideration for numbers of significance. I'm not crazy about 512 though. ∂ανίΠα 00:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Much as I dont likeit, the entry is useful for its translations. Someone has made an entry on Appendix:Numbers. I have noted on the page and removed the rfd. Andrew massyn 12:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RFD discussion: June–October 2020
No similar numbers and violates the numbers policy. J3133 (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. They're spelt with spaces. Khemehekis (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)