Talk:baby on board

RFD discussion: March–September 2018
Not lexical, doesn't make sense as a translation target. DTLHS (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dunno about translations, but the wp article is interesting. DonnanZ (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per the proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Isn't this also used, idiomatically, to refer to being pregnant? bd2412 T 21:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know- any evidence? DTLHS (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there is, from Wikipedia: "Following popular request and trials in 2005, Transport for London (TfL) began issuing badges with the TfL logo and the words "Baby on board!" to pregnant women travelling on the London Underground, to help other passengers identify pregnant commuters who would like to be offered a seat." Sorry, forgot to sign. DonnanZ (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a cite - 2016, Victoria Pade, A Camden's Baby Secret: "And even if there wasn't a baby on board, I'd still be here telling you this and asking you to give me another chance". bd2412 T 22:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt the existence of that sense, but I don't see it as idiomatic; it's simply a metaphoric use. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If so, it is not a transparent metaphor. If I say someone "has a baby", the presumption is that they have given birth to a child. If I say someone "has a baby on board", the addition of "on board" alone changes the meaning to indicate a current pregnancy, which is also not the sense of a vehicle having a baby on board. bd2412 T 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I didn't understand a word of what you just wrote.
 * = ≈ . "She has a baby on board" = "she has a baby inside [her]". I don't see what's not transparent about it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just imagine you're heavily pregnant carrying a baby, if that's possible. You would feel the weight and definitely know you had something "on board". DonnanZ (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, are you answering to me or to BD2412? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You, it's indented after your comment. DonnanZ (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "On board" is not generally used to mean inside with respect to a living body. Would you refer to kidneys or a liver as being "on board"? bd2412 T 14:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Used in the same jocular way as "baby on board" seems to me to be employed, I wouldn't find it terribly shocking. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm tending towards Keep here ... maybe. Foremost, there is the metaphorical use "She has a baby on board" = she is pregnant. Was easy to find cites for this. But perhaps that should best be entered as "have a baby on board" - for which the present info about the car sign should be included in the etymology. As for the car sign, well, perhaps an entry for "on board" would cover all the possible variants (I found "dog on board", "cat on board", "camel on board", "Mickey/Minnie on board", ... but did not find "gecko on board", "fish on board", unsurprisingly). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not just because it's very SOP, but because it's pretty specifically on signs. Signs aren't things we can or should cite, and most reference to this phrase as the definition is written would be mentioning the content of the signs. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pretty obvious sum of parts.  "Dog on board," etc.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Such an entry already exists, with the definition "on or in a means of transportation". I think perhaps the "have a baby on board" figurative option suggested by Sonofcawdrey is reasonable, especially mentioning it in the etymology; I think otherwise it's definitely SoP.  So Delete; also possibly adding a "have a baby on board" entry to cover the figurative meaning. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as SoP: + . — SGconlaw (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleted, as I see that most editors feel it is SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)