Talk:for cryin' out loud

RFD discussion: September–November 2016
Any -ing word can be written as -in'. I don't see any need for these to have separate entries, any more than there is a need for every word beginning with "h" to have a separate entry with the "h" dropped, for instance. Mihia (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I couldn't agree more. I could understand why we might have cryin' as well as crying. DCDuring TALK 21:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It's bleedin' obvious that we should get rid of this... P.S. I like fish 'n' chips. Equinox ◑ 22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep, from here all the way to the moon (hey I invented my own idiom). Anything that isn't SOP and is attested should be included (plus this is a very common alternative form after all, and this form is actually used most of the time in oral speech when this idiom is said). for cryin' out loud does not equal the sum of for + cryin' + out + loud. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are 16 permutations just of "for/fer" + "crying/cryin'" + "out/oot" + "loud/lood" ("oot" and "lood" being dialect spellings). Forgive me if I don't check every one, but many are attestable. Would you have separate entries for all? Mihia (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this particular one, for cryin' out loud, is a very common alternative form used to show how it actually sounds very often in American English speech. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to, same thing with other similar entries. No reason to duplicate content. - TheDaveRoss 11:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I should point out previous consensuses are to keep entries like this. Not saying consensus can't change. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Either keep this as an, or redirect it (but don't delete it). In practice some entries do one of those things, some entries do the other. - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. This specific variation gets over 8,000 Google Books hits. bd2412 T 01:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That 8,000 figure is probably one of Google's Large Random Numbers™. No one, as far as I have been able to ascertain, understands how these are generated or what they mean. Retrievable hits run out at about 170 for me. Hits verifiable by looking at the excerpt (i.e. "for cryin' out loud" visible in the excerpt) run out at about 70. 109.146.103.236 19:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If the same attrition applies to hits for the fully spelled-out version, then the high proportion of examples of the variation remains the same. bd2412 T 13:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Predictable eye dialect, no inherent variation of the word in question. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: We keep for crying out loud as idiomatic and no CFI-based rationale for deleting this attested form was stated. The applied principle is not that eye dialect should be excluded; Category:English eye dialect has over 1600 entries. The definition line "Eye dialect spelling of for crying out loud" is fine. The entry is not hugely useful, but so are many of our -ness entries, un- entries and the like. As for the allegged permutations, e.g. does not find anything. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim that all permutations exist in Google Books, just that "many are attestable", which I stand by. I do not believe that pointing to one example with no Google Books hits undermines the main point, which is that if separate entries are allowed for all permutations of variant and dialect spellings within phrases then these entries will proliferate beyond what is sensible. Mihia (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What if this particular permutation is orders of magnitude more prevalent than any other? bd2412 T 01:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there would be problems with stipulating that words or expressions should not be included just because they are insufficiently common. Obviously there are many uncommon entries that we want to include. I think there is an issue with the silliness per se of including all these permutations, irrespective of whether they are common or rare. Mihia (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep on the basis of its commonness, but any other variations should be hard redirects, and this should not be taken as a precedent for entries like or . Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean . bd2412 T 04:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 17:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 15:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April–May 2022
For probably dumb reasons, this was kept in 2016. Notusbutthem (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. As long as pronunciation spellings are allowed on Wiktionary, I see no reason to target this one in particular. Binarystep (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - in particular, this term is commonly spelled this way. Theknightwho (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  10:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (also per above). Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Um, delete, why is everybody else on crack here? Equinox ◑ 13:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes this less worthy of inclusion than anything else in Category:English pronunciation spellings? Unless this RFD applies to 1,706 pages, it seems odd to single this term out. Binarystep (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per prior keep votes. AG202 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per prior keep votes. Facts707 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * RFD-kept. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  18:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)