Talk:have an axe to grind

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

have an axe to grind

have an ax to grind

This is (deprecated template usage) have + (deprecated template usage) an + (deprecated template usage) axe/ax to grind.

It is not a set phrase as ax/axe can accept modifiers, such as no, personal, institutional, etc. and coordinates. (deprecated template usage) ax/axe to grind often appears as object of the preposition with.

The strong relationships with have and with are the stuff of redirects and usage examples and notes. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete ax to grind unless it can be demonstrated that "ax to grind" is used with verbs other than have/has/had Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  It's used with get, e.g. "got an axe to grind": see Google Books. Equinox ◑ 00:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  Feel free to put that one up for RfD or RfV or whatever. This does not concern that entry. DCDuring TALK 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  "ax(e) to grind" is fairly easy to cite without have (and also with pronouns like "his" and "her" in place of the article). Like DCDuring says, "with an axe to grind" is a common phrase. Mark Twain for instance said "To every man cometh, at intervals, a man with an axe to grind". I can also cite "What was his axe to grind?", "Choosing an ax to grind in today's world isn't easy" and "None of them carried an ax to grind." have is overwhelmingly the most common verb to take ax to grind as an object, but it's not the only one. Redirect to ax to grind/axe to grind Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The definitions at (deprecated template usage) have an axe to grind and (deprecated template usage) ax to grind are a bit different. I don't know if that means that they mean different things or if (deprecated template usage) ax to grind just needs to be updated, in which case I vote delete (deprecated template usage) have an axe to grind and (deprecated template usage) have an ax to grind. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Or does have an ax/axe to grind need to be corrected? DCDuring TALK 12:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fix and redirect per SMinC. DAVilla 00:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• let me get this straight: we're advocating the deletion of the verb, not the idiom itself? How have we handled similar idioms that also have verb and noun defintions? It seems to me that both are valid, but I can see the benefit of having a single definition and pointing alternates to it. --Jacecar (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A few past examples: compare apples and oranges, Elliott wave theory, unable to find one's way out of a paper bag. The full phrases were condensed to their idiomatic part. DAVilla 03:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to the noun. (Otherwise, delete.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

redirected -- Liliana • 19:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)