Talk:good on you

RFM discussion: January 2019–October 2021

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (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.

---

good on you→good on someone

per good for someone. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure that other objects are even possible? This is somewhat of a set phrase. DTLHS (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

google news:"good on him" has a fair amount of results. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see what the usage note says if it's to be at [[good on someone]]. If we can't write a good usage note, I'd favor the current entry staying where it is, with a full entry also at [[good on someone]]. DCDuring (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, we can say "good on him", "good on her", "good on them", "good on Mr Smith", and so on. In fact we can even say "good on someone" if the person is unknown (e.g. "Good on someone for fixing this"). Even so, to me "good on someone" seems a bit unexpected or unintuitive as the main entry. Having said that, I don't know what else to suggest. Mihia (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hard redirects from the common forms and usage examples for the common forms should reduce any user confusion. DCDuring (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless the entry could be at "good on". I mean, we can say "good on the company", "good on parliament" etc. Although these nouns are still "people-related", they are getting further away from "someone". Mihia (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any problem saying good on that toaster if a toaster did something remarkable. I think it can just be good on. 76.100.241.89

Moving this to good on with redirections from good on you, good on someone, etc seems like the way to go. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Good discussion, everyone. I think good on someone as per OP is preferable to avoid usages such as "that looks good on you", "make good on a promise", etc. Also parliaments and toasters are rare uses that no one would expect to find in a dictionary.Facts707 (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The query "good on the government for" yields many results on Google. I don't think, as the IP who made the toaster pointed out, that this refers necessarily to people; any actor can do something to prompt this response, including institutions, companies and non-human actors such as animals. So I support an entry good on as the logical option. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

True, but to overwhelmingly more common object/complements are a person or group of people (even a 'government'). I'd limit the impersonal objects to a mention in a usage note. Many of the instances of impersonal objects are probably metonymy for a person or group of people: "Good on City Hall", "Good on the 42 car", "Good on Python", "Good on The Economist." DCDuring (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting case: "good on mother nature tho for holding off on the rain". Personalization of impersonal forces might allow anything that has ever been deified to be the object of good on. DCDuring (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Moved by Equinox. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 06:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)