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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names of small numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A parody of Names of large numbers. Never before have I seen a Wikipedia article parody another Wikipedia article. Georgia guy (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This doesn't seem remotely like a parody to me. Rather, it seems to be a perfectly appropriate complement to Names of large numbers. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it not a parody?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgia guy

This is not a parody, it is quite serious. Regarding Wikipedia articles whic parody others, I believe they exist, though I do not habitually read them, perhaps one of the specialty WikiProjects can provide a list of those.

@Georgia guy, I found a parody page for you by happenstance!: "Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles" by administrator FisherQueen (talk · contribs) who's part of WikiProject LGBT studies, and whose article bears the tag:

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Pandelver (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ RadManCF

As RadManCF noted, it is "a perfectly appropriate complement to Names of large numbers." And it is far more complete, including its citations than the rudimentary article in the Simple English Wikipedia, "Names for small numbers" at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_small_numbers which I have just found (this did not come up in searches within the main English Wikipedia). Should that article be merged with this one, or should the 2 wikis have separate content and slightly different article titles?

• (1) Fellow editors, particularly in mathematics, please add:

• (1.2) sections regarding binary and other base unit exponential numbering systems
• (1.3) sections regarding names for small numbers in human cultures and languages, featured in related articles
• (1.4) specialty usage examples and terminology by field

• (2) Should the Simple English Wikipedia article be merged into this one? I am not clear about the relationship between these 2 wiki's.
• (3) See also references have been inserted in about a dozen other articles, most often those which also list Names of large numbers in See also
• (4) Found one proposal online from a University of Bonn page, http://www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/numbers_names.php suggesting -minplex as a suffix for reciprocals of numbers which are quantum multiples of googol. Comments please, and any knowledge of usage, even while these numbers are small enough that perhaps they are rarely used yet in science, economics and other fields. Pandelver (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the separate Simple English Wikipedia article initiated July 15, 2007 attests to the Wikipedia precedent of acceptintg this topic's significance as much as the English Wikipedia article on Names of large numbers initiated May 27, 2004 and extensively updated by many hands over just under 7 years now once it existed and people found it over time.

This small numbers article is also not a parody because the names and extensions of naming conventions reported in it are all correct, as are such names in the dozen other articles which also report on naming conventions and their variations.

What is it that you may have found funny or did not believe yourself, Georgia guy? Pandelver (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Simple English Wikipedia is a separate project, completely distinct from the main English Wikipedia in the same way that the Wikipedias in other languages are. We don't merge articles between the two Wikis. The two encyclopedias have different rules and policies, because of their differing missions. In particular, an article on names of numbers makes more sense in the Simple encyclopedia, because it is geared toward people whose command of English is very limited, such as people who are learning English as a second language.--Srleffler (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review input regarding seriousness of this article v. proposal for deletion as parody has been requested from WikiProject Mathematics.Pandelver (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review input regarding seriousness of this article v. proposal for deletion as parody has been requested from WikiProject Engineering. Pandelver (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review input regarding seriousness of this article v. proposal for deletion as parody has been requested from WikiProject Physics. Pandelver (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review input regarding seriousness of this article v. proposal for deletion as parody has been requested from WikiProject Numbers.Pandelver (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not exactly a parody, but not really appropriate for an article. The only information not obvious from Names of large numbers is the bizarre last column of the table, which seems to be WP:OR, and a short note on billion/billionth, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to others here: the column that Arthur calls bizarre has been removed from the article.--Srleffler (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review input regarding seriousness of this article v. proposal for deletion as parody has been requested from WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology.

@Arthur Rubin, besides further editors adding sections and material, if in your opinion this article is not appropriate, should Names of large numbers and related sections of all other articles also be deleted Pandelver (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. From a mathematical point of view this is just as unnecessary and nonsenical as from any other. Notability is hard to asses for this kind of odd article, but it seems to fail GNG. To the extent that this should have any notability in a formal sense, it should be merged with Names of large numbers anyway, because that's the best organisation of the material. By the way, what they have on simple is completely irrelevant ehre. Among other reasons, it's a much smaller project, which makes it more likely that inappropriate things slip through. Hans Adler 00:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review input regarding seriousness of this article v. proposal for deletion as parody has been requested from WikiProjects Computer science, Mathematical and Computational Biology, History of Science. Pandelver (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add this to the other article and rename it 'names of numbers'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.30.136 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hans Adler, 98.140.30.136 re: alternative point of view

• (5.1) If the content in this article is merged with Names of large numbers since it has the best current organization (before parallel material grows on this topic), should the title of Names of large numbers be changed to something like Names of large and small numbers?
• (5.2) Should the Simple English article also be merged if a corresponding large numbers article exists there, or in your opinion deleted?

• (5.3.1) In your opinion, this is mathematically "unnecessary" to whom, to what readers, please, demographically or in relation to applications?
• (5.3.2) In your opinion, should Names of large numbers and all similar material, if they are "nonsensical" when "in any other [here at Wikipedia?]" be deleted as also "unnecessary"? Pandelver (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep – serious subject and useful reference material. How could a list of SI prefixes possibly be original research? Boghog (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The column that Arthur complained about as original research is no longer in the article. The SI prefixes are fine.--Srleffler (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin, Hans Adler, Boghog

• (6.1) Should the notes regarding unused terms be trimmed out, leaving the used terms for their relevance to those in several fields who seek to corroborate standard, comparative and shared names for these numbers?Pandelver (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (6.2) Will this list of number names benefit the vast majority non-specialist Wikipedia readers in understanding what numbers are indicated when found in other literature, television, online, and also when they read professional materials? Will it help them formulate their own statements to others, including in homework, science and technology and computing discussions? Is this issue (6.2) one of Wikipedia's valid effects on its reading public including those who have not yet come to Wikipedia until they search for topical information? Pandelver (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What is done on Simple is irrelevant here. What is done here is irrelevant to Simple. Discussion here should be limited to what is on en.wikipedia.org. If you need to discuss Simple, the place to do that is simple.wikipedia.org. LadyofShalott 00:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, now that I edited it by deleting the questionable content and rewording it to sound less silly. It's a simple but worthwhile article. --Steve (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I was quite, er... “surprised” that such an article exists, but I can't see any particularly strong reason why the encyclopedia would be better without it. I wouldn't oppose merging it into somewhere, but I can't think of a good merger target right now. --A. di M. (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steve. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge little numbers with big numbers. This is basic science and engineering information, and belongs in any encyclopedia. It is discussed in any modern engineering or science introductory textbook. The pages on large and small numbers should be merged. See Herrick, Noll, Brumbach, Stephan and countless others which have tables of prefixes (these stick to the powers of 1000, as in Engineering notation, but other tables include the in between powers of ten like "centi" or deca".Edison (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, either with names of large numbers or some other article. The information itself is encyclopedic but there's not enough to justify the presence of a separate article. I also echo, per wp:other stuff exists, that we should measure this on its own merits and not on the presence of articles of similar scope here or on other projects. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we can keep a straight face housing articles called Death threat, Vehicle door, and anything this [guy] has ever done, we can certainly keep this awkwardly named article. Eric ^talk 05:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - duplicates contents of the first table at orders of magnitude (apart from the final two entries, "octillionth" and "nonillionth", which are unsourced and sound bogus to me). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not agree with the rationale of the nomination which in any case does not suggest which deletion policy or guideline is being invoked. Any OR aspects should be removed but this does not involve article deletion and what would remain is still viable. There is certainly an overlap of a general kind with Names of large numbers so I would not necessarily object to a merge. However, the best presentation there might well be to have two tables with a redirect from Names of small numbers to the section containing the small numbers table. It is not at all clear to me why this would be better than two cross-linked articles. I do not accept the arguments that the article is mathematically obvious or unimportant. Many people will not have a full understanding of the terminology. The article as a whole is not suitable as a dictionary item. That individual words can be included in a dictionary is irrelevant. Thincat (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Burn it with fire I.e. redirect to names of large numbers and protect. Anyone who can't put "-th" behind a word isn't going to read an encyclopedia to find out. Just another article than needs to be kept clear of original research and other nonsense. —Ruud 14:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that not everyone using the English Wikipedia is a native speaker of English. Imagine, for example, someone from Europe with very limited English and whose native language uses the long scale. The correct English word for 10^-12 is not trivial for this reader.--Srleffler (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Names of large numbers makes this (despite its name) sufficiently clear already. Anyone wondering about my extreme reaction, probably hasn't seen Other names of large numbers before it was deleted. —Ruud 01:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is as valid and useful as Names of large numbers. Not every article needs to have deep content to be worth keeping. We could merge the articles on large and small numbers under a new title, but I don't think that would actually be more useful or readable. --Srleffler (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wasn't this stuff transwikied to Wiktionary years ago? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this with Names of large numbers into one article Names of powers of ten (or perhaps, shorter, Powers of ten, which then would need a hat note referring to the documentary Powers of Ten). (Sticklers for precision may prefer Names of powers of 1000, but that's not nearly as nice as a search term.) I don't think this was meant to be a parody, if only because it did not mimic the columns with authorities, which borders the ridiculous on the wrong side. It also has a useful innovation: the SI prefixes.  --Lambiam 19:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Arthur Rubin and Ruud Koot. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments aren't holding water. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a joke or parody, obviously created in good faith, but orders of magnitude (numbers) has all the same content and is much better organized. No clear need to separate this list into "big" and "small" numbers. Dcoetzee 02:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Clearly it is parallel to the "large numbers" article and so the fates of both reasonably should be tied. Say to "Table of order of magnitude terms"? Collect (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Names of large numbers is worthy if an encyclopedia article because it has useful information on etymology and history. There is no scope for such expansion in the article under discussion (since to convert a large number to a small one just requires adding -th to the end). At most, a paragraph on small numbers can be added to the Names of large numbers article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful.216.96.14.215 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. See WP:USEFUL. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As all our collective comments except the first editor's do not consider this to be a parody, and we have moved on to consider instead:

• fundamental worthiness of this subject, and how much of it is covered by the article so far
• whether its content should be merged or moved or whether its name should be changed

Pandelver (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's no longer only about cardinal numbers, so that early section has been headed appropriately. And it's now not only a parallel to part of Names of large numbers, it states names of numbers and quantities idiosyncratic to numerical smallness. Physics and cosmology sections have been added. More sections may be added by various editors. Pandelver (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with describing this as a parallel to names of large numbers is that noln is an article with actual, meaningful prose and citations. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recently deleted the physics sections, see Talk:Names of small numbers. I don't think that including "small quantities" is a good direction to move in, because "small quantities" is not a meaningful concept, and also because "small numbers" and "small quantities" are two different topics that are almost unrelated. (IMO.) See talk page for more elaboration. :-) --Steve (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2011 (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.