Talk:by committee

Unrelated characterists
unnecessary complexity, banality... what do these have to do with each other? DAVilla 01:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

RFD debate
1 SoP; 2 tendentious definitions. DCDuring TALK 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sense 1 is either redundant or wrong, AFAICT. I mean, committee proceedings aren't necessarily protracted, and if I said "it was done by committee" I wouldn't necessarily mean that it was done slowly.  If the entry is kept in some form, we should include the truly SoP sense (currently lacking), since "by committee" usually just means "by committee".
 * I would merge senses 2 and 3, though I'm not sure of the exact wording. -- Visviva 07:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ok what do you think of the entry now? -- Thisis0 19:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it. The wording could be more concise, but I think these are both senses that we should have. -- Visviva 15:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep for sense 2. I think it could be (and has been) used humorously when there's clearly no actual committee involved. Sense 1 feels like SoP. (Actually, when a word or phrase has a non-literal meaning, like sense 2 here, people often seem to put the obvious literal meaning as sense 1. I'm never sure about that: do we have to spell out a clear sum of parts merely because there's a secondary sense that isn't the same thing?) Equinox 22:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I could have no greater hope for this term than it be defined by committee. DAVilla 06:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahaaahaaaha!!! :D -- Thisis0 17:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, often used in a non-literal way (: closer by committee). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Kept. &#x200b;—  msh210  ℠  20:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)