Talk:force with arms

Quotation
Is for a noun. Sigh. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for deletion
Means force with arms. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - fried egg, idioms are allowed in Wiktionary. The definition has a quotation and references to support it.  There are many quotations available. WritersCramp 10:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, says it's a noun. Definition is for a verb. SemperBlotto 10:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the formatting is awful, but that's not a reason to delete it, just a reason to clean it up. WC, see WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors that are compelled to post deletion +tags, when they know nothing about a subject are the liability. Editors that add legitimate entries with citations are the asset. WritersCramp 10:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The image isn't relevant, nor are the external links. WC, quit arguing with me and try and format the entry. The definition currently refers to using force with arms (armaments), hence rfd material. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The person that posted the deletion +tag started the argument. "Force with Arms" relates to an armed military, such as the Nazi era army, hence the image. WritersCramp 10:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Citation is also wrong (wrong PoS). Images are supposed to help understand the word, and this one doesn't. Anyway, this is about force of arms, not about me. If you spent as much energy improving the entry as you do arguing about it, it might be pretty damn good. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and start over with valid citations. DCDuring TALK 14:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, or we'll see drive a car and write with ink. It's no problem to find quotations and references of them either. As a more general note, there are so many badly written articles among basic English terms that the "inclusomaniacs" would be well advised to direct their energy e.g. on the hundreds of entries which are largely based on 1913 Webster's. Currently many of the central words have six meanings out of which five are tagged obsolete and the latest reference is from 19th century version of the Bible. --Hekaheka 15:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete  Really, there's debate about this? The definition of this sum-of-parts verb is wrong (to force is not “to employ strength”), and the quotation is for 3/4 of a sum-of-parts noun phrase: illegitimate adj., force n., with arms or explosives qual.). —Michael Z. 2010-03-31 18:35 z 
 * Comment: This idiom is in the New Oxford Shorter, do we feel that is not a legitimate citation? WritersCramp 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes we do feel that it is not. Occurrences in dictionaries are not uses of a word. Please review the wt:CFI. —Michael Z. 2010-04-01 22:55 z 

Deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)