Talk:for kicks

for kicks
As for fun was deleted, there's a stronger case for SOP-ity --Itkilledthecat (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd keep it anyway. "Fun" most prominently means a good time, while "kicks" most prominently means "strikes or hits with the foot". bd2412 T 17:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to kicks. DCDuring TALK 17:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This may be a keeper, as from my personal experience, kicks is rarely used outside of this expression to mean enjoyment or excitement. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean: Kicks just keep gettin' harder to findSee WP here or here and YouTube here. But perhaps you could support your case with some evidence. Or maybe I'm the only one who gets his kicks from citations. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And then there's Get Your Kicks on Route 66. If we're going to keep because of usage that doesn't mention feet, then we might as well go through I Get a Kick Out of You and create a phrase entry for the first phrase in each verse: "I get no kick from champaigne", "I get no kick from a plane", etc. Not that I'm totally for deletion- even though it seems to me like the idiomaticity actually rests more in the phrase just for kicks.Chuck Entz (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're citing uses of "kicks" from songs, then "Get teenage kicks right through the night" is yet another without "for". Actually, I think the non-for version is possibly more widely used than "for kicks". Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. If someone says, "I'm going to try karate for fun," there's no ambiguity over the intended meaning, because "fun" isn't idiomatic. But if someone says, "I'm going to try karate for kicks," they could be saying they want to try karate to learn specific kicking techniques or for fun, because "for kicks" can be either a literal statement or a figurative expression. Astral (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ambiguity is a characteristic of the use of any polysemic word. Ambiguity increases if more than one polysemic term is used in a phrase or longer unit. Any phrase or clause using set or head is very ambiguous.
 * As for "for fun", consider:
 * This is ambiguous except for the context provided by the title, until the ambiguity is mostly resolved by punches. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is ambiguous except for the context provided by the title, until the ambiguity is mostly resolved by punches. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're reading a book about kickboxing, it can pretty much be taken for granted that instances of "kicks" refer to the motion made with one's leg. The authors aren't going to suddenly switch to using the idiomatic sense of "kicks" without clarification, because that's just going to confuse readers. But if you were to overhear someone say, "I'm going to try karate for kicks" without any more context to go on then that ("I want to meet new people, so I'm going to try karate for kicks" or "I want to strengthen my leg muscles, so I'm going to try karate for kicks"), then there could be ambiguity. Astral (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I find it strange it was nominated for deletion. It's idiomatic and it's obvious. Keep, of course. --Anatoli (обсудить) 00:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to kicks. It's perfectly harmless, there's just no reason to have this and not for fun, for jollies or for shits and giggles. This way, someone who searches "for kicks" will still find what they need, without splitting the definition across the two pages. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to [[kicks]]. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)