Talk:ballpark figure

RFC
They are the same, but the etymologies are quite different, as are the regional remarks. H. (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These look like sum-of-parts expressions with attributive use of ballpark (2).
 * I'm starting to perceive a problem with definitions like this being distributed over four or more various entries. I think we need a form-of template like  to link them all to the lemma. —Michael Z. 2009-04-09 14:25 z 
 * We can already do that for any idiom. Just set up one main entry containing the defn, with ancillary  entries. I completely agree that redundant full entries for the same thing are bad news (since they always get out of sync). -- WikiPedant 22:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think ballpark figure: is sum-of-parts, because both portions have multiple senses, but only one combination of them applies. I agree with you about ballpark estimate:. --EncycloPetey 22:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't interfere with our usual application of “sum of parts.” It may feel obscure because ballpark is not used in its literal sense, but this is a reasonably common expression.  It would be useful to mention or define this set phrase for the sake of English learners, however, but we don't currently have any guideline which recommends or allows it. —Michael Z. 2009-05-14 14:00 z 
 * Done. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)