Talk:ballpark figure
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
RFC[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
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.
They are the same, but the etymologies are quite different, as are the regional remarks. H. (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- These look like sum-of-parts expressions with attributive use of ballpark (2).
- I'm starting to perceive a problem with definitions like this being distributed over four or more various entries. I think we need a form-of template like
{{common expression including}}to link them all to the lemma. —Michael Z. 2009-04-09 14:25 z- We can already do that for any idiom. Just set up one main entry containing the defn, with ancillary
{{alternative form of}}entries. I completely agree that redundant full entries for the same thing are bad news (since they always get out of sync). -- WikiPedant 22:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- We can already do that for any idiom. Just set up one main entry containing the defn, with ancillary
- I don't think (deprecated template usage) ballpark figure is sum-of-parts, because both portions have multiple senses, but only one combination of them applies. I agree with you about (deprecated template usage) ballpark estimate. --EncycloPetey 22:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- This doesn't interfere with our usual application of “sum of parts.” It may feel obscure because ballpark is not used in its literal sense, but this is a reasonably common expression. It would be useful to mention or define this set phrase for the sake of English learners, however, but we don't currently have any guideline which recommends or allows it. —Michael Z. 2009-05-14 14:00 z