English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/1000000000000000000
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was move and replace with redirect.. – Rich Farmbrough 14:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
1000000000000000000
I think this should be either deleted or redirected to trillion. Oleg Alexandrov 00:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- delete, plain and simple. Oleg Alexandrov 22:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
This should be moved to quintillion, I'd say. Redirect. -- A Link to the Past 01:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)- Redirect to
eithertrillion (European usage)or quintillion(U.S. usage). ‡ Jarlaxle 01:42, July 16, 2005 (UTC)- Rather, redirect to trillion, as quintillion already redirects to Names of large numbers. ‡ Jarlaxle 01:47, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect Revolución 01:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete! According to Wikipedia naming conventions, this title would apply to the year AD 1000000000000000000, just like 2000, 1945, 476 and 3. A D Monroe III 02:58, 16 July 2005 (according to edit history Uncle G 08:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC))
- Delete: Redirect would be misdirected, and there's nothing in the article. Geogre 03:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to either the large numbers page or binary. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Names of large numbers --malathion talk 04:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)- Delete. As has been mentioned, this article title would be for a year, even if that year happens to be one which will occur long after our Sun has been extinguished. Kairos 05:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- This is exactly the sort of thing that motivated the creation of the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/500,000.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers states that only "some powers of ten" beyond 9000 warrant individual articles. The argument over whether an article about the number should redirect to trillion or to quintillion, as per Oleg Alexandrov, A Link to the Past, and JarlaxleArtemis above, is exactly why this page has come to VFD in the first place. See the edit history. It's not a settlable argument, as attested by Names of large numbers, list of numbers, Orders of magnitude (numbers), and English-language numerals, all of which already cover the several names that the number can have in various systems. 1 E18 redirects to Orders of magnitude (numbers). A 1000000000000000000 (number) article should do likewise. Just as 1000000000 (number) already does.
However, this isn't 1000000000000000000 (number). As per A D Monroe III, Kairos, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), 1000000000000000000 is the article title for a year, even though the article says nothing about the year at all. If it redirects anywhere, it should redirect to 11th millennium and beyond. Since there's nothing in either article about the year, and probably (given what Kairos says above) nothing to be said about the year, simply Delete. Uncle G 08:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Uncle G --malathion talk 10:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to names of large numbers since the content appears to be solely about the difference in names for this number, and the other article covers this. 23skidoo 14:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
It's obvious from the article that the editor intended to discuss the number, not the year. Since the name of the number varies in different forms of English, redirect to Names of large numbers. Dcarrano 21:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)- What the editor intended to discuss is irrelevant. The naming conventions are clear that 1000000000000000000 is the title for an article on the year and 1000000000000000000 (number) is the title for an article on the number, and this is the system followed elsewhere. (See Category:Integers.) A redirect from a year title to an article on a number would be contrary to the naming conventions. What the original authors wrote isn't even important from the perspective of retaining information. We already had four separate articles (listed above) telling us the various names of the number. Uncle G 00:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, you're right that the naming conventions need to be followed. So, let's rename this to 1000000000000000000 (number), an article that can explain the various names for this number and anything else that can be said about it, along the lines of the current 100000 (number), 1000000 (number), and 1000000000000 (which probably itself should be called 1000000000000 (number). Damn, this is confusing... Dcarrano 01:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Good point about 1000000000000. It's now fixed. I moved it to 1000000000000 (number), and redirected 1000000000000 to 11th millennium and beyond. --A D Monroe III 15:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Note this is not my suggestion of what to do with this article. My vote is still Delete, as above (thanks for signing for me, Uncle G). I hope this article is deleted, and then I'll start Vfd on 1000000000000, as a nonsense year, just like this one. --A D Monroe III 16:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- It being a redirect, WP:RFD would be the place to discuss 1000000000000. Uncle G 10:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Too late! Some admin has deleted and protected 1000000000000. So, guys, why are we debating this, huh? --A D Monroe III 13:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Note this is not my suggestion of what to do with this article. My vote is still Delete, as above (thanks for signing for me, Uncle G). I hope this article is deleted, and then I'll start Vfd on 1000000000000, as a nonsense year, just like this one. --A D Monroe III 16:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Good point about 1000000000000. It's now fixed. I moved it to 1000000000000 (number), and redirected 1000000000000 to 11th millennium and beyond. --A D Monroe III 15:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, you're right that the naming conventions need to be followed. So, let's rename this to 1000000000000000000 (number), an article that can explain the various names for this number and anything else that can be said about it, along the lines of the current 100000 (number), 1000000 (number), and 1000000000000 (which probably itself should be called 1000000000000 (number). Damn, this is confusing... Dcarrano 01:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
- What the editor intended to discuss is irrelevant. The naming conventions are clear that 1000000000000000000 is the title for an article on the year and 1000000000000000000 (number) is the title for an article on the number, and this is the system followed elsewhere. (See Category:Integers.) A redirect from a year title to an article on a number would be contrary to the naming conventions. What the original authors wrote isn't even important from the perspective of retaining information. We already had four separate articles (listed above) telling us the various names of the number. Uncle G 00:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Changed to Delete. -- A Link to the Past 23:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Uncle G. Strong Oppose any renaming as nearing the absurd. Xoloz 03:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oh boy, now the redirects have been done. Does this affect the status of this VfD? Should the matter now be discussed at RfD? Xoloz 10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- The actual article under discussion has not been redirected. Uncle G 10:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Note how easy it is to confuse 1000000000000 and 1000000000000000000. All the more reason to delete both. --A D Monroe III 14:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- The actual article under discussion has not been redirected. Uncle G 10:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oh boy, now the redirects have been done. Does this affect the status of this VfD? Should the matter now be discussed at RfD? Xoloz 10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, ludicrous. Radiant_>|< 13:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete ~~~~ 13:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - I am the creator and I only created it due to disputes overe where it should redirect. A redirect to 11th millennium and beyond looks good (if someone wants to add info on the year (astrological events etc) then they should put it there). The 1000000000000000000 (number) article should redirect to orders of magnitude (numbers). --Celestianpower talk 12:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Uncle G. I forget what zero I'm on after the fourth one, trillion is a better name anyway ;) . ∞Who?¿? 10:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect or this will make a crazy article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: there is already an article for large numbers, so this is not particularly necessary. IINAG 18:48, 23rd July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not even worth a redirect... jg325 *talk* 23:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or someone creates 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Laur 14:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.