Talk:angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin

angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin
Looks doubtful. Google Books, anyone? --Takanatsu the Frippant 10:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I verified it not long after you added the RFV tag; it now has three citations. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * …but it’s specifically an adjectival form, not an alternative spelling. Widsith 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * …and the cites for the non-hyphenated version are all nounal (if that’s a word), so I’ve been bold and separated them. Am I up to date that we now use “Noun” and “Adjective” as POS headers, rather than “Idiom” or “Noun phrase” or “Adjective phrase”? --Eng in ear 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your revisions seem correct. How does counting angels on pinheads come into this? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * …apart from my error which you corrected, for which thanks; it’s a use which some might want to see — more relevant than some web-sites’ “those who searched for… also searched for…” — but if you don’t think it’s relevant enough, I’m not fussed if it goes. --Eng in ear 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Que‽ Sorry, but I can’t understand your last post; could you please explain what you meant? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was answering your question on the assumption that you meant "Why is counting angels... included in the See also?" If you meant "Should the POS header for counting angels... be Noun?", then yes I think it should, but it hadn't been directly mentioned and, to be honest, I'm not totally certain it acts as a noun -- my grammar is somewhat rusty -- so I didn't change it. --Eng in ear 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the latter; and yes, it acts as a noun. I have changed the “Idiom” section title thereïn unto “Noun”. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 02:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't that be count angels on pinheads? DAVilla 14:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn’t that make it a verb? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would. "Counting" would then be a gerund derived from it, which can be used as a noun. But that's not the motivation. The title is supposed to be shortened, and removing the -ing accomplishes that. The progressive form would then be a hard redirect. DAVilla 18:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK; I see. I checked, and count angels on pinheads, does meet WT:CFI; I’ll create a thrice-cited entry for it tomorrow. Just one question: what happens to the citations præsently at counting angels on pinheads; where do they go? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Idioms are the main exception to the "no redirects" rule. On the rare occasion that an idiom does overlap with another language, the meanings are borrowed from one language to the other, and the idiomatic defintions hold, unlikely to vary.  So the other (closest) forms of the idiom are supposed to redirect to the most common idiom.  --Connel MacKenzie 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that I understand, but where do the citations that are already at counting angels on pinheads go if that entry is to become a redirect? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 05:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I took a guess and copied the citations from counting angels on pinheads to a subsection in count angels on pinheads; I hope that this is acceptable. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 05:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's correct. DAVilla 09:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have edited counting angels on pinheads so that it now redirects to count angels on pinheads. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. Well done, † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr. —RuakhTALK 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)