Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexdecillion

There's an excessive list of numbers, which don't need to each be expanded into an article unless a significant number is related to it (ie. the Googol related numbers). None of these pages, Sexdecillion, Quindecillion, Quattuordecillion, Tredecillion, Undecillion, have that.
 * Don't delete articles about large numbers. They are to be kept in the case of any special numbers in the ranges, including:
 * twin primes
 * factorials
 * super-exponentiation
 * etc. 66.32.242.104 02:33, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I've consolidated it down to one debate, which should be enough. The issue is the same, and voters can list exceptions. --Ben Brockert 02:49, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, you need to remember to sign your entry, 132.205.15.4, and you should both realise that "anonymous" entries aren't given as much weight as those by registered users. Registering is trivial and has many benefits, I highly recommend it. Oh, and don't forget the edit summaries. --Ben Brockert 02:55, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Each of these gets more than 500 google hits. If I saw one of these used, I'd need to look it up to find out what it was.  - TB 14:33, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Enter each into the table I've provided for that very purpose at Large numbers, then replace each with a redirect to Large number. But, please, someone, include the authority for the existence and usage of the word. In most cases that will just be the name of a dictionary, but we should have it. I believe many of these names have no real use and were coined simply for the pleasure of creating the name. (And while you're at it... I couldn't get the wiki-markup table to come out the way I wanted it...) . Dpbsmith 15:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Rossami 17:22, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. blankfaze | &#9835 18:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * If these names were just coined for pleasure, then does this mean that they should be discontinued?? What, then, is the largest number name that should stay in the English language?? And how should larger numbers be named?? 66.32.147.97 18:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The English language is like Wikipedia. It has no central authority, and consists of whatever words English-speaking people happen to use. Compilers of dictionaries use their judgement in deciding what words are used enough to warrant including them.
 * Some words are so obscure or so rare that it's not clear whether you can really call them legitimate words, because almost nobody uses them. Thus, the Oxford English Dictionary, and I believe only that dictionary, includes floccinaucinhilipilification because they have some record of its being used somewhere. But Merriam-Webster doesn't think it's a word. The Merriam-Webster Unabridged 2nd edition, and I think only that dictionary, included pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. But the Oxford English dictionary doesn't think that is a word.


 * Trigintillion is another example of such a word. It's not really needed, because there simply aren't a trigintillion of anything. Not the number of grains of sand on the seashore, not the U. S. national debt in pennies, not the number of atoms in the universe. It's not a useful word, because you never need to talk about a trigintillion. And if you did, you should just say "ten-to-the-ninety-third." It would be silly to use the word "trigintillion" because (a) almost nobody would know what you meant, and (b) even the people who did know wouldn't know whether you meant ten-to-the-ninety-third or ten-to-the-one-hundred-and-eightieth. Even sextillions, septillions, etc. are a little dubious; the only people that need to use numbers that large are scientists and astronomers, and they don't use these words; they just use numeric notation, or SI prefixes, or special units like light years and parsecs.


 * My position is that, in the interest of being comprehensive, it's OK to include these names as entries, but a) they don't deserve entire articles, since they will never be much more than dictionary definitions; they should redirect to some kind of simple tabular summary; and b) since their status as real English words is a little dubious, we should cite the authority we're using. A dictionary (a mathematics dictionary if you like), a manual of style, whatever. If someone says "quattuordecillion is a word," I want to know who said so. Personally, as to how high it is sensible to go, I think that if the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't need a word, Wikipedia doesn't need it, either. That's just my $0.02 I challenge you to find any use of the word quattuordecillion--or "septillion," for that matter in any context other than discussions of names for large numbers. Dpbsmith 19:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Where is the border to be exact?? Is it between quintillion and sextillion?? In other words, should we consider it acceptable to use million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, but after that, we discontinue names like these and go 10^21, 10^24, etc.?? 66.32.66.12 19:18, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of judgement. I've seen "quadrillion" in print, in newspaper articles about the energy consumptions of entire nations. I don't know that I've personally seen anything larger. Have you? Where? As I said, the American Heritage Dictionary goes up to a vigintillion. THat's one answer.


 * P.S. I don't know when I'll have a chance to get to the library and consult some dictionaries and other sources about this, so I won't be working on this myself in the immediate future. I don't have a problem with the entry in the "authority" column being something like a math textbook, or even "Dr. Nerd's Trivia Fun Facts'n'Trivia Website". As time goes on if we find better authorities we can include them. But if we're going to include, say, "septilliard" because http://www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/numbers_names.php says it's British for 1045 I really do want the reference&mdash;just in case www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/numbers_names.php is wrong. Dpbsmith 19:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Good argument. Merge and redirect is the way to go. --Ben Brockert 01:38, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * To what article?? 66.32.95.180 01:40, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * To the article Dpbsmith posted, Large number, specifically in the nice table at Large number. --Ben Brockert 01:51, May 27, 2004 (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 Nicolas 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 between large numbers themselves and the art/science/game/history of naming them. The list I added to Large number I have now copied to Names of large numbers, and improved (but I have not yet removed it from Large number).
 * FYI It turns out that Chuquet did not exactly invent billion, trillion, quadrillion and friends. First of all, he spelled them with a y, byllion, tryllion, quadryllion 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 02:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Just a note, but I've seen sextillion--the earth weighs 6 sextillion tons. Meelar 07:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)