Talk:Milliard

use of "miliard"

Have never encountered the phrase 'Milliard' in the UK.

'billion' used to refer to a million million in the UK, but the US meaning of a thousand million has displaced that.

Probably should be mentioned in the article then. I've only ever encountered "milliard" in works dating from the 1930s, it might well be an extinct word by now. - Hephaestos 00:30, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have heard it a few times - not frequently, but on a fairly regular basis. It certainly seems to be on its way out though, and the American use "billion" is definitely becoming more common (sadly - it's far harder to work out the size of numbers... million² = "Bi(-mi)llion; million³ = "Tri(mi)llion"; etc). Grutness

See my post on Talk:Billion where I give examples of use dated 2001 and more recently. There are government documents using the word back in the 1960s, also I believe SI units specfied it back in the 1970s. -Wikibob | Talk 23:47, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

This was a single usage by a South African pastor back in 2001. The Australian usage you mentioned was recanted. Please give links / refs to your beliefs of SI usage, etc. Otherwise, it does indeed look very much like an obsolete word. Ian Cairns 01:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Text altered slightly to reflect the changes that have been made at billion. [[User:Grutness|Grutness ^talk ]] 13:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to move to Wiktionary

Why the term "milliard", but not the term "billion" ???

Very important: make the difference between!

You mention the importance to differ between long scale and short scale measuring. In the whole "old world" a billion is not a billion. We (german, french, italian... speaking countries ) called a us-billion not billion but "milliard" our billion is 1000 times a us-billion. Do you see clear? No? As you can see, millions of peoples are confusing every day by reading newspaper articles they have been directly translated from us or gb-english into our languages because of interpreters don't know this mature difference...

So why not to make clearly the difference?

The world does not know only english, english is a minor language (one of thousends) - even but the most popular foreign language.

cosy from switzerland - a 4-language country (GER,FR,IT,Rumantsch) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.62.86.88 (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

The UK and Ireland are part of the 'old world' yet nowadays use the short-scale billion - so your "whole" comment is not entirely correct. The explanation is covered in full at - Long and short scales, which is linked from this article. Note that some short-scale countries still use milliard and presumably go straight to trillion? eg Denmark. Ian Cairns 10:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Street folk in the UK still use the long-scale billion aside from international business which uses short-scale for compatibility with the US markets. 217.204.106.228 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "newspaper articles they have been directly translated from us or gb-english into our languages because of interpreters don't know this mature difference..." I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't understand the very basic English-language word "billion" should not be translating articles from English in the first place. WorldWide Update 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

megamillion

hmm, "10⁹; one thousand million or a megamillion", but mega is 10⁶, so that'd be a million millions, not one thousand millions, am i right? 213.65.150.21 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Did a google search on the term megamillion, and can not find any reference to the existence of the word in this context (only the US lottery). So have deleted it. The Yeti 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right The Yeti.  A "megamillion", at the most, would be 10 power 6 times 10 power 6, i.e. a Chuquet billion. In the context, please also see this consideration.
-- Gluck 123 20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does your link have to do with milliard or megamillions? In fact, what does it have to do with the real world at all, as it seems to be some wackos invention of a new number system that vitually no-one can, or would want to, understand? The Yeti 00:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi The Yeti. The hexadecimal BI-SMH – antagonist to the decimal BIPM – considers that the short scale billion is not-consistant, since the Chuquet billion is progressive, because it is logarithmic. Both decimal billion and hexadecimal billion is million power two. The hexadecimal million is 0x 1, 00000  (= 1024 x 1024).
Oh, consistent, unambitious hexadecimal digits are not "wacko" at all. In contrary the piecing together, current IBM-digits inhibit the understanding and generalisation of the hexadecimal system. In history, letters ever also meaned numbers. In ancient times, the foot measure was ever shared into 16 digits. -- Gluck 123 11:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

merge proposal

There is nothing in this article that isn't covered better in Names of large numbers. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Opposed. In this logic even Billion may be merged to Names of large numbers.
But both entries stay necessary.  -- Gluck 123 (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot more content in 1000000000 (number) though. (Note that Billion is actually a disambiguation page, and so is therefore necessary. If there were other things called "Milliard," I would not be opposed to a disambiguation page, obviously) In this article, I literally see zero content that isn't already in Names of large numbers. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also please note where Billion (word) redirects to... to Long and short scales, which perhaps also should be merged with Names of large numbers! heh... Lots and lots of redundancy here. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I guess you're joking, the merging of long and short scales with names of large numbers has been discussed (see long and short scales talk page). Basically no-one thinks it a good idea, as the context and point of the two pages is different. Not to mention, both pages are extremely long to start with, so a merged page would be even longer - so much so, that the wiki editor will recommend splitting it !

Anyway, for milliard I would suggest a redirect to long and short scales, not names of large numbers. Or expanding the milliard page with info from the other two (and shortening the other two slightly). The Yeti (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that I go back and read carefully Long and short scales and Names of large numbers, I agree the content is distinct. Even though there is a lot of redundancy, there is also a lot of unique content and the redundancy makes sense.

I am fine with a redirect to Long and short scales. I was not aware of that article when I initially proposed the merge. Any objections? Should we wait longer for consensus? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Prefered Term

I would think that billion not thousand million is the prefered term? 157.190.228.14 (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article and the talk page, you will note that "billion" is not a fixed term and means different things in different places. In the US a billion is equivalent to a milliard. Elsewhere that is not guaranteed. 217.204.106.228 (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re my last edit

FAO Icairns, I was about to revert that edit myself after I realied that there was already concensus on the largely-debatable issue of long-scale vs short-scale usage in the UK. Thanks for beating me to it! :) 217.204.106.228 (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

^ Note, this is me. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem - Thanks for letting me know. Ian Cairns (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ten milliard?

Lemme get this straight...

-one -ten -hundred -thousand -ten thousand -hundred thousand -million -ten million -hundred million -milliard -billion -ten billion -hundred billion -billiard -trillion -ten trillion -hundred trillion -trilliard -quadrillion -ten quadrillion -hundred quadrillion -quadrilliard -quintillion -ten quintillion -hundred quintillion -quintillion -sextilliard -ten sextillion -hundred sextillion -sextilliard etc...

or

-one -ten -hundred -thousand -ten thousand -hundred thousand -million -ten million -hundred million -thousand million -billion -ten billion -hundred billion -thousand billion -trillion -ten trillion -hundred trillion -thousand trillion -quadrillion -ten quadrillion -hundred quadrillion -thousand quadrillion -quintillion -ten quintillion -hundred quintillion -thousand quintillion -sextillion -ten sextillion -hundred sextillion -thousand sextillion etc...

but never

-one -ten -hundred -thousand -ten thousand -hundred thousand -million -ten million -hundred million -milliard -ten milliard -hundred milliard -billion -ten billion -hundred billion -billiard -ten billiard -hundred billiard -trillion -ten trillion -hundred trillion -trilliard -ten trilliard -hundred trilliard -quadrillion -ten quadrillion -hundred quadrillion -quadrilliard -ten quadrilliard -hundred quadrilliard etc... ??? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to Long Scale terminology the last set of numbers - which you label "never" - is the correct one as far as consecutive powers of ten are concerned. --Glenn L (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger to Long and short scales

I've now copied the text of this article into the Talk page of the LASS article. This means that this article can be tidied down, as per the consensus. Thanks Ian Cairns (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)