Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals

Numbers, numerals, and ordinals
Voting on: Adding handling of numbers and numerals to WT:CFI.

Proposal 1:

Expanding WT:CFI with the following, placing it after the paragraph starting with "Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words...":

An attested integer word (such as twenty-three or twenty-third) or a decimal numeral (sequence of 0, ..., 9 digits) that is ≥ 0 and ≤ 100 should be kept even if it is not idiomatic. In sequences of digits such as 125, the digits are considered to be separate components for the purpose of idiomaticity, and therefore, the sequences are often not idiomatic.

Proposal 2:

Adding the following text to WT:CFI, to a new heading "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals":

Numbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100 that are not single words or are sequences of digits should not be included in the dictionary, unless the number, numeral, or ordinal in question has a separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI.
 * Numbers, numerals, and ordinals

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Beer parlour/2017/May
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg User talk:Daniel Carrero
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Talk:105
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Talk:one hundred and twelve
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Talk:two hundred and twenty-five
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Talk:two hundred and one

Support proposal 1

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  - we need something on this. bd2412 T 13:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4)  Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Dan Polansky (talk) I prefer proposal 1: we already exclude sum of parts items, so we only need something to ensure additional inclusion. By contrast, proposal 2 ensures additional exclusion, which is in fact redundant to what we already do in CFI. That said, pragmatically, proposal 2 is probably going to work as well, so I abstain on it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the proposal 2 is redundant to what we already do in CFI. If the proposal 2 fails, we might have to discuss about keeping some entries like 101, one hundred and one and one thousand and one. Not all sum of parts items get deleted. Some are kept as "non-idiomatic translation targets". Numbers like twenty-three itself (which will be kept if the proposal 1 passes) are basically NITTs too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there would be much discussion: one hundred and one contains "A great many; numerous" as a sense, and is therefore kept as idiomatic, per current CFI. Ditto for one thousand and one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  -Xbony2 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  Mistrz (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4)  Ƿidsiþ 10:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5)  DonnanZ (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 1

 * 1)  -  [The] DaveRoss  13:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Support proposal 2

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , per above. bd2412 T 13:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  Equinox ◑ 21:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4)  -Xbony2 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5)  -  [The] DaveRoss  13:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 6)  — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 7)  DonnanZ (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 2

 * 1)  I realized I actually oppose. This exclusion rule does not need to be added, I think, since it is covered by sum of parts terms being excluded except for a partially specified set of exceptions. Proposal 1 provides that numbers 0 to 100 are an exception to be kept; an addition of proposal 2 is redundant. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  I see no reason to exclude them. Ƿidsiþ 10:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No reason to exclude any of them? How about 52,573,904? Or seven hundred and fourteen-thousand, three-hundred and six? bd2412 T 19:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Decision
Passed. Edited WT:CFI accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * proposal 1: 10-1-0 (90.91%) (passed)
 * proposal 2: 9-2-0 (81.82%) (passed)