Talk:acter

RFD discussion: November–December 2023
This was deleted per the one-acter RfD. There Wonderfool “suspect[ed] that the term one-acter was coined before acter”, and TheDaveRoss and Binarystep voted to delete and Equinox to keep, respectively, acter. For similar -er terms used in combination, see Category:English terms suffixed with -er (measurement) (e.g.,, , , , ). Alternatively, we would have, , , , , , , (all sufficiently attested). J3133 (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support undeletion. I created a few similar entries like without knowledge of that RFD, and yes I agree it makes sense to have single entries qualified as "in combination" over loads of (number)-...er terms which are easily comprehensible sums of parts. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support undeletion. Equinox ◑ 15:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Theknightwho (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It was never officially deleted, merely removed. diff. DonnanZ (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Weird that it was deleted in the first place. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

RFD-restored and changed the etymology to refer to sense 4 of as envisaged above. This, that and the other (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)