Talk:same old-same old
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Is this form, with dash or hyphen (-), attested? It can be hard to search for, though. By contrast, same old, same old seems easy to attest. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, pretty easy to search for - I just entered the search term "same oldsame old". It is cited. Kiwima (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
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.
Um I don't know what to say about this except that it's inherently incorrect. If everyone disagrees then we'll keep it. Just drawing attention. Equinox ◑ 22:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- We'd need it as a redirect anyway. Keeping it as an entry is just a matter of attestation IMO. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- After I put this to WT:RFV#same old-same old, attesting quotations are now in the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I vote to keep. It is a reasonably common variant. Kiwima (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)