Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Names of large numbers

This is a list of numbers. Not all of them are "very large." Those that are should not be the subject of an article. It really doesn't have any hope of becoming useful. Guanaco 02:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC) Keep now. It looks a lot better. Guanaco 00:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Where off Wikipedia are these nonsensical number names used?? 66.32.71.137 02:40, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears that the anon who created the page really did try to address this by ascribing the names to authorities, namely Chuquet, Knuth, and Pelletier. The problem is that the article does not give the reference to the specific works in which these names were proposed or described. Dpbsmith 12:14, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the table at Large number does a better job of covering this. It's less inclusive, but the numbers are still within the realm of relevance. -- Cyrius|&#9998 04:21, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename to powers of ten and delete the resulting useless redirect. Then make a suitable link from large number to powers of ten, and merge the two tables. This deserves its own article, but it needs some work. Andrewa 07:07, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. "those that are should not the subject of an article" ... perhaps not individual articles if there is little to be said... but we should keep the list. "doesn't have any hope of becoming useful"... I disagree with that opinion.. Also it should not be renamed "powers of ten" because not all very large named numbers are powers of ten... see e.g. Graham's number. This is a clear cut clean up issue. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of numbers and redirect is the appropriate content resolution. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but really should provide references to the specific works by Chuquet, Pelletier, and Knuth. Maybe move to a different title. "Naming systems for very large numbers" or "Naming systems for very large values" or the like. I'm thinking that I really like the idea of separating the "real" numbers (the ones that are, say, included in the major dictionaries) from the ones that are really just nerd trivia and games. "Naming systems for very large values" could be a dumping ground for all of the interesting and amusing naming systems. That is, as long as it is treated as enjoyable nerd trivia and obscure factoids, and as long as the authority for the names is given, I think an article on these names is fine. Needs work, needs to cross-reference powers of ten and large numbers. Could also serve as a repository for "doggabyte" and other mythical SI prefixes as well. Dpbsmith 11:03, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with everything Dpbsmith said. Abigail 21:38, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename as "large numbers". --Wyllium 22:09, 2004 May 27 (UTC)
 * False. Large numbers re-directs to Large number. 66.32.64.27 22:10, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with Large number. --Wyllium 22:43, 2004 May 27 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm now actively tinkering with this page, but there's a lot of work to be done, including fact-checking, since a lot of loose statements found in various place on the Web and in Wikipedia about Chuquet, etc. don't seem to be exactly right. I've moved Very large numbers to Names of large numbers, which I think is where it should go. I think it's time to draw a distinction large numbers themselves and the game of creating names for them. The list I added to Large number I have now copied to Names of large numbers, and improved it; but I have not yet removed it from Large number).
 * FYI It turns out that Chuquet did not exactly invent million, billion, trillion, quadrillion and friends. First of all, he spelled them with a y, myllion, byllion, tryllion etc (so Knuth collides with Chuquet's namespace). Second, one Jehan Adam used them before Chuquet did. Third, neither Adam nor Chuquet claimed authorship and apparently the context of their references to the names suggests they were in use earlier. Fourth, Chuquet's work remained unpublished for a very long time, so he didn't directly influence anyone. In other words, the whole topic is a maze of twisty little trivia, all of them hard to pin down. I'm going to keep nibbling away at it but I could certainly use help. And I'm keeping a copy in my user space just in case it's decided that this page should really be deleted after all.
 * Meanwhile, anyone who want to add names to this page by all means do so but please document who coined them, where, and when and whether they've received any acceptance. Dpbsmith 22:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)