Jump to content

Talk:for cryin' out loud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Inqilābī in topic RFD discussion: April–May 2022

RFD discussion: September–November 2016

[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Any -ing word can be written as -in'. I don't see any need for these to have separate entries, any more than there is a need for every word beginning with "h" to have a separate entry with the "h" dropped, for instance. Mihia (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Delete. I couldn't agree more. I could understand why we might have cryin' as well as crying. DCDuring TALK 21:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's bleedin' obvious that we should get rid of this... P.S. I like fish 'n' chips. Equinox 22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Very strong keep, from here all the way to the moon (hey I invented my own idiom). Anything that isn't SOP and is attested should be included (plus this is a very common alternative form after all, and this form is actually used most of the time in oral speech when this idiom is said). for cryin' out loud does not equal the sum of for + cryin' + out + loud. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
There are 16 permutations just of "for/fer" + "crying/cryin'" + "out/oot" + "loud/lood" ("oot" and "lood" being dialect spellings). Forgive me if I don't check every one, but many are attestable. Would you have separate entries for all? Mihia (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but this particular one, for cryin' out loud, is a very common alternative form used to show how it actually sounds very often in American English speech. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Redirect to for crying out loud, same thing with other similar entries. No reason to duplicate content. - TheDaveRoss 11:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I should point out previous consensuses are to keep entries like this. Not saying consensus can't change. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Either keep this as an {{altform}}, or redirect it (but don't delete it). In practice some entries do one of those things, some entries do the other. - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
That 8,000 figure is probably one of Google's Large Random Numbers™. No one, as far as I have been able to ascertain, understands how these are generated or what they mean. Retrievable hits run out at about 170 for me. Hits verifiable by looking at the excerpt (i.e. "for cryin' out loud" visible in the excerpt) run out at about 70. 109.146.103.236 19:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
If the same attrition applies to hits for the fully spelled-out version, then the high proportion of examples of the variation remains the same. bd2412 T 13:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
I didn't claim that all permutations exist in Google Books, just that "many are attestable", which I stand by. I do not believe that pointing to one example with no Google Books hits undermines the main point, which is that if separate entries are allowed for all permutations of variant and dialect spellings within phrases then these entries will proliferate beyond what is sensible. Mihia (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
What if this particular permutation is orders of magnitude more prevalent than any other? bd2412 T 01:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think there would be problems with stipulating that words or expressions should not be included just because they are insufficiently common. Obviously there are many uncommon entries that we want to include. I think there is an issue with the silliness per se of including all these permutations, irrespective of whether they are common or rare. Mihia (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Weak keep on the basis of its commonness, but any other variations should be hard redirects, and this should not be taken as a precedent for entries like that's what I'm talkin' about or seein' the forest for the trees. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Surely you mean that's what I'm talkin' 'bout. bd2412 T 04:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 15:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

RFD discussion: April–May 2022

[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


For probably dumb reasons, this was kept in 2016. Notusbutthem (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep. As long as pronunciation spellings are allowed on Wiktionary, I see no reason to target this one in particular. Binarystep (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep - in particular, this term is commonly spelled this way. Theknightwho (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep per above. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 10:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep (also per above). Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Um, delete, why is everybody else on crack here? Equinox 13:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
What makes this less worthy of inclusion than anything else in Category:English pronunciation spellings? Unless this RFD applies to 1,706 pages, it seems odd to single this term out. Binarystep (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep per prior keep votes. AG202 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep per prior keep votes. Facts707 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply