Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000000000000 (number) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers). The redirect will be protected for a month to discourage recreation. --Coredesat 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1000000000000 (number)[edit]

This article keeps on coming back. See the previous afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000000000000 (number). I still believe this article should not exist. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the result of the discussion at DRV was to relist (although the closer said that redirects are not open for discussion there), I've reopened this AfD and reverted my earlier redirect decision. Please let the discussion run for five days. Thanks. Sr13 09:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When people are reviewing the page, please look at the page as it stood at the beginning of this discussion (that in history : 09:54, 6 June 2007 by Sr13), rather than the one that has been substantially changed by another user, with, IMO, nonsense sentences on 'it is quite a large number', etc. Looking at the original page hopefully provides the best context and consistency for this discussion. The Yeti 22:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Its just a load of rubbish. — Taggard (Complain) 03:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete why would we need this? JJL 04:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Protect Delete, protect if necessary. Jmlk17 07:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can somebody pass the salt?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the well put comment above. Anonymous Dissident Utter 10:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we really don't need articles about every number unless it has some special property, and this one doesn't. Hut 8.5 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge whatever salvageable and redirect to the existing Tera article. The latter would be an adequate indirect method of salting. Other than that, I guess it qualifies as a... WP:POVFORK! NikoSilver 12:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAFT per above Whsitchy 14:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect it to Orders of magnitude (numbers) like its brethren, and then protect. Arkyan • (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect it to Orders of magnitude (numbers) and salt. Edison 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Arkyan is a preferable solution. The Orders of magnitude (numbers) page does a decent job of covering 1012. Possibly the three Fibonacci numbers could be merged. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy delete as per most others. Dalejenkins 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) per above. GoldengloveContribs ·Talk 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ummm, guys, in case you didn't notice my message above, there is an existing sub-article of Orders of magnitude (numbers), which directly relates to the specific number. It's called Tera, and it is consistent with Kilo, Mega, pico, nano etc. Give it a look please; I think we should redirect there. NikoSilver 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Arkyan, merging any content not already covered in Orders of magnitude (numbers). This number is only semi-interesting because of the scourge of creeping decimalism, which must be resisted in whatever form it takes. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL, that's one of the most inspired arguments I've ever read here! I doubt most readers will know what we're talking about though... NikoSilver 23:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its not the number article in itself, but what links to it - the point is that when billion/trillion is typed into Wikipedia, it brings up a disambiguation page for these terms (try them & see). The disambiguation page has come about because there are two different numerical numbers for billion/trillion (see long and short scale). To keep the disambiguation pages 'clean' and to avoid arguments and edit wars on the billion/trillion pages, it is simplest to link through to the actual number (1000000000000). I dont care about 10^11 or 10^13, but 10^12 does have its uses ! In fact, according to WP:NUM#How far to go?, powers of ten upto 10^11 are considered OK to exist. Why is 10^12 deemed one too far, particular when it has the billion/trillion ambiguity and then also has standard word name(s) and an si term ? With regards to the previous nomination, the billion and trillion pages have gone through large changes since then. At the very least it should be a Redirect to the sub-article of Orders of Magnitude Tera. The Yeti 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, WP:NUM#How far to go? says "... Afterwards, only powers of 10 (from 1 up to 10^11, higher than that only if they have a standard word name and commonly used SI prefix) and numbers with some remarkable mathematical property." Since 10^12 does have a standard SI prefix for SI units, and also has not just one but two different standard word names, having an article on it would clearly be okay according to that even without the special need for disambiguation which "trillion" presents. Cardamon 08:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect, then protect. There are infinitely many numbers of the form 10^X, and WP cannot have articles on each of these. The redirect is appropriate, but deleting the content before redirecting discourages the creation of similar articles. Xoloz 15:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tera, not order of magitude (numbers). Astroguy2 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- I have encountered the problem that User:RJHall described in the original June 2006 AFD discussion, many times -- namely, some well-meaning wikipedian, who, counting on their fund of general knowledge, "corrected" something, so that it was actually no longer correct. It is maddening. And, sometimes avoidable. In this case, it is avoidable. So, let's keep the article and avoid the problems RJHall described.
    • Hut 8.5 wrote:"we really don't need articles about every number unless it has some special property, and this one doesn't." —— I agree, only that we don't need articles about every number. But, there are a bunch of numbers that are special, and should have articles about them. Not just zero and pi, but dozens or hundreds of others. I believe a strong case has been made that this is one of them.
    • I do not agree that a redirection to Tera would best serve the wikipedia. -- Geo Swan 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I encourage delete fans to apply a what links here -- sanity check. Over one hundred articles use a link, or a piped link to 1000000000000 (number). The links I have looked at from the "what links here" list are all nouns. Tera is not a noun. It is either an adjective, or just a word fragment, a prefix. That would be inherently confusing to readers.
      • Does it really make sense for someone who clicks on trillion in an article on the Federal Reserve System, or the Weimar Republic, to find themselves at Tera? I don't think so. We might all be numerate. Everyone here in this discussion might be comfortable with number, not suffer from discalculi. But that doesn't mean we should make the wikipedia less accessible to those who aren't numerate, who do suffer from discalculi. I question whether any article that deals with 1000000000000 in a monetary context should link to tera.
      • Consider One trillion (basketball) -- does it make sense for a click here to send the reader to tera?
      • Consider standard cubic foot, does a link to tera really make sense.
      • I wish those making nominations for deletion, or endorsing deletion, would make the effort to check the "what links here" list first, and think about how the deletion they favour affects the articles that link to the article they want to get rid of.
      • Cheers! Geo Swan 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just... stupid... If this lives, I'm going to find a way to justify making my phone number an article... --Auto(talk / contribs) 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and unlink the references to it (and trillion) in other articles. Same arguments as the last AfD are coming out again - no surprise there. - fchd 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So that people can continue to wikilink to it to when they use the word "trillion" so as to make it clear what they mean. Cardamon 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree to a deletion and then a redirect to Tera. To address Geo Swan's concerns, I'd propose the compromise solution of redirecting to the subsection of Orders of magnitude (numbers) which discusses the particular number: Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1012 (only it doesn't look nice since "12" is not superscript. Coming to think of it, shouldn't there be a centralized discussion for all these numbers somewhere? I'd hate it if (a supposed) 1 000 000 000 was redirected to giga rather than the subsection of "Orders of..." if we decide differently here... NikoSilver 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tera is only for SI units. It is not really correct for a quantity that is a pure number, or for non-SI units. Using Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1012 risks someone only noticing what article they were sent to and not realizing that the section of the article to which they were sent was meant as a disambiguation. Actually, for the very fastest disambiguation, I would prefer to rename the article to 1,000,000,000,000, which is currently a redirect to Names of large numbers. Then the main point of the article would be apparent just by mousing over trillion, and would also be the first, and largest font-size, part of the article to hit the eye of those who clicked through. Cardamon 07:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I've been wondering what number follows 999,999,999,999 and precedes 1,000,000,000,001. But now I've found out, just Delete it. Masaruemoto 03:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep numbers should be considered notable when there is something noteworthy to say, adnd for this number there is, and the above discussion has proved it. if it were, say, one higher or lower, we would have deleted it without discussion.DGG 05:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers). Alone, this article is totally pointless. Useight 06:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, replace with redirect some place useful, and protect. >Radiant< 07:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Trillion. I find it difficult to understand how I am the first to suggest this when it seems so obvious, or am I missing something? LittleOldMe 12:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing something, and that is that not everyone calls this number a trillion. Clarifying that is the main purpose of the article IMO. --Itub 12:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This number is notable precisely because of the ambiguity of its name. At the very least it should stay as a disambiguation page. A redirect to tera is not appropriate, because tera is an SI prefix, not a number. --Itub 12:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that could apply to any number over 1,000,000,000. As an aside, what do all the "other 13 digit numbers" listed on the page add to the article? - fchd 12:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is true that the naming problem applies to any numbers greater than or equal to 10^9, and I would certainly not advocate creating an article for numbers such as 10^360. However, I think 10^12 is notable because it is the first or second smallest number suffering from such ambiguity (depending on how you count), and it is possibly the largest order of magnitude that people actually bother spelling out, or even writing as a number without scientific notation or other type of abbreviation. People talk about billions and trillions frequently. The same is not the case for octodecillions, for example. --Itub 12:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jesus! We definitely need a centralized discussion for all these! We have two English names (million, billion, trillion etc in two scales), we have scientific names (kilo, mega, tera etc), we have the numbers themselves (1,000,000; 1,000,000,000 etc), and we have an article containing all of them (Orders of magnitude (numbers)). Now multiply this times all notable numbers; and you will see how many different results may be decided in separate AfD's!! Is there a Wikiproject or something discussing these? NikoSilver 12:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So there seems to be as many people for delete as redirect in this discussion, and the keeps are also closing in. Of the redirects, there's confusion on whether Orders of magnitude (numbers) or Tera is better. Is there really a desperate need to delete this one article from Wikipedia, given there seems little consensus on what to do, and all the ambiguities? The Yeti 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • [edit conflict] Personally I doubt this is controversial or anything. We just need to get our thoughts together. Strike redir to Tera, and make it to Orders etc; not an issue by me as I'm mostly convinced. What I'm concerned about is consistency with the rest. I think we need to discuss the following agenda:
      • Confirm that the main article for all will be Orders of magnitude (numbers).
      • Address which numbers will be dealt with in there (up and down limits).
      • Clarify how the information will be separated between:
        • Main article (Orders...)
        • Numbers as such (1 000 000, 1 000 000 000, etc): separate articles? / redirected to Orders? / deleted completely?
        • English names (million, billion, trillion etc in two scales): redirected and merged to Orders? / piled together?
          • Trillion/billion x 2 scales - God no! We're trying clarify things, not make it worse!
        • SI terms (kilo, mega, giga, tera etc): separate articles? redirected and merged to Orders?
    • I think this agenda should be discussed (or if it is already discussed pls point me to the discussion); and then we will be all happy. We can always salt everything outside the conversation to be safe, and we will point links to this centralized discussion in all relative talkpages. Then we're done. NikoSilver 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) (or delete), because the nominated article has no information besides what is in Orders of magnitude (numbers). Sentences like "1000000000000 is the number between 999999999999 and 1000000000001" are not useful information. I really doubt we could write more than a couple of sentences about 10^12, and articles that are necessarily so short are routinely merged. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) (or delete) Per User:Jitse Niesen. The last AfD, from June 2006, also ended with a verdict of 'Redirect and delete'. Since the editors who re-created an actual article (without any intervening DRV) were overriding the decision of the AfD, I believe that this time the creation of a protected redirect is justified. The present article has little informational value for our readers, while Orders of magnitude is quite well written and can answer some of the same questions. EdJohnston 15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per trillion/billion linkage cleanliness and to allow discussion about possible redirect as mentioned by The Yeti and Niko (and others) to occur in a cleaner environment than AfD. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as billion/trillion ambiguity provides sufficient encyclopedic content, particularly for linking those words. After keeping it, consider renaming to 1,000,000,000,000 (but not immediately because that needs broader discussion about naming principles for articles about large numbers). The silly sentences about 999999999999 and 1000000000001, as well as the various multiples of 1111111111111 in the table may well be purged from the article without deleting it completely. –Henning Makholm 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (alrady voted delete...) I would think that "this article provides a place for people to link to" is a poor justification. There's no really useful comment in the article that's particular this number other than adding a few more digits than in 100. We judge article based on what they contain, not how many times we can link to something that doesn't really say much but has pretty boxes. --Auto(talk / contribs) 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't consider the "billion"/"trillion" ambiguity to be particular to this number? Strange. –Henning Makholm 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is, it's little more than a dictionary defintion issue, not the basis for an encyclopaedic article. - fchd 20:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the complaints about possibly losing a link to the "billion"/"trillion" ambiguity - how does wikilinking to this page help the user determine which one is being used? Not much. Articles for the words "billion" and "trillion" already exist and already document this ambiguity, a seperate article for the number does nothing to help inform. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are two more reasons for keeping this page. This shows that at least one non-native speaker of English recently searched for 1000000000000 in order to find the English word for it. So the page can be useful to non-native speakers of English. Also, the content, while admittedly far beneath the notice of professional mathematicians, could possibly be useful to, say, middle school students. Please consider that an encyclopedia is written for its readers, and that Wikipedia has a lot of readers and potential readers in the categories I have mentioned. Cardamon 07:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All this can be achieved by redirecting to order of magnitude. My point is that the only thing that the page should say is that the number is usually called trillion in English, but sometimes billion. An encyclopaedia does not consist of loose facts, it consists of articles which collect facts together. Thus, one fact does not make an article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would prefer to see the article title with commas "1,000,000,000,000", if it is kept. The string of zeros is difficult to take in. However, what is perhaps needed is substantive, rather than disambiguation articles on billion, trillion, and quadrillion, in which case this article could be retained as a disambiguation page. The present articleis certainly stuffed with the inconsequential, but the solution to that is to delete, not AFD. Peterkingiron 09:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can this page be a disambiguation page? The number 1,000,000,000,000 is not ambiguous. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me spell this out. As you yourself mention above, the English words billion and trillion are ambiguous. You can use 1000000000000 (number) as a disambiguation page as follows: To disambiguate trillion, if 1000000000000 (number) is the number meant, type [[1000000000000 (number)| trillion]] into the edit box rather than just typing trillion. That disambiguates the trillion by pointing the reader to the actual number that is meant. Or, if you had an old quote which used the word billion to mean 1000000000000 (number), you could replace the word billion with [[1000000000000 (number)| trillion ]] , thus disambiguating it. Cardamon 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I'm sorry, I think that is the least user-friendly of all the suggestions so far. - fchd 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • ???? How are wikilinks like trillion "the least user-frendly solution so far"? Granted, moving the article to "1,000,000,000,000" would be better than keeping it where it is.Cardamon 01:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd expect that if the word trillion is linked, it goes to the article [[trillion]] . That's what links usual do. If you're concerned that the reader may misunderstand trillion, then you should explain it in the article (see also Septentrionalis below). It's not user-friendly to expect the reader to realize that the link [[1000000000000 (number)| trillion]] is an atypical link put there to explain the use of the word trillion and to click on the link. That's bad practice and thus not a good reason to keep the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to 1,000,000,000,000 (number). This number is notable in being the largest number that is generally talked about outside of scientific usage. Voortle 12:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It hurts my eyes, and it is pointless. There should at least be commas, or title it "One million million". Oh, just delete it.
  • Keep. As Cardamon points out, the terms billion and trillion are ambiguous. The first time I saw it, I thought it was a good idea to end the confusion about "Is that a million million, or a thousand million"? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No additional information above Order of magnitude (numbers). The differences between US and Euro uses of number words is fully described in Long and short scales. -- MightyWarrior 08:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should not keep an article around just to disambiguate trillion. As a financial term, trillion is in practice unambiguous, unless someone can come up with a genuine citation for £1018. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is an article that uses billion to mean 10^12 in a financial context, and uses the page you want to delete to disambiguate it. Is that close enough for you? Cardamon 07:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. I grant that billion is ambiguous. But (precisely for that reason) the article should say "one hundred million million (1014)". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article is about German banknotes which used the German "billion" for 1012 during hyperinflation. Here is an example which both says "Fünf billionen" and "5000 milliarden" (milliard = 109). Others at [1] only said billion. PrimeHunter 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1000000000000_(number)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137507845"