Talk:free throw percentage

field goal percentage
Both SOP of free throw/field goal + percentage. The fact that the abbreviations FT% and FG% exist does not make the terms themselves idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 00:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep both: What are we going to delete next, batting average? I'd dissent from the nominator's rationale and say that's unclear simply from SOP what field goal percentage means; the definition includes words like "made" and "attempted" that are not part of the word itself.  Plus, the mere fact that it's a sum of field goal + percentage and not field + goal + percentage is IMO a reason for keeping. Pur ple back pack 89   00:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are they uncountable? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess you can have field goal percentages or free throw percentages... Pur ple back pack 89  13:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete both. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaning delete both. SOP, and it should be obvious from the context that the percentage is successful attempts out of total attempts. bd2412 T 12:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's that obvious unless you're a native English speaker with a bit of a head on your shoulders (FWIW, I really don't like people using "it's obvious" as a deletion rationale). Also, remember for this to be pure SOP, the definition shouldn't contain any other words except "field" "goal" and "percentage", and maybe a few articles or prepositions. Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   13:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems pretty straight forward: field goal percentage. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 00:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If one knew what "field goal" and "percentage" meant but not what "field goal percentage" meant, couldn't one also reasonably also conclude that an acceptable definition of "field goal percentage" is the percentage of one's total shots that are field goals (as opposed to free throws)? That's equally SOP-y as the correct definition.  And again, that's still making the assumption that everybody can put the field and goal together in their mind; if they can't, there's no way they arrive at the proper definition. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   02:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No ones asking them to put "field" and "goal" together, that's why field goal is not SOP. The fact that another interpretation of the parts exist that is not used in a particular instance of the phrase, does not make the phrase un-SOP. --WikiTiki89 16:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But what it does do,, is make a case for why the definition would be useful for readers. I would hope people actually care about having definitions useful to readers? <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   16:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I await the start of your vote: add to CFI "automatically include anything PBP89 thinks is useful to readers". Equinox ◑ 20:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'd rather just repeal the "Equinox thinks every single reader can determine what every single two- and three-word entry means" policy. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  21:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Wikitiki, they do not have to. --DixtosaBOT (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * COALMINE has nothing to do with abbreviations; it only applies to variants that differ only by spaces. --WikiTiki89 19:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But,, the nom's rationale has already been disproved above. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  14:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On the fence somewhat. There's a general US sports issue where 'percentages' are marked out of one, like on-base percentage .500 (surely that's 1 time in 200, not one in two) but let's set that aside because that's a common thing that you get used to pretty quickly. So a percentage is something divided by something times 100. Alright not times 100 in this case just a/b. How obvious is it what's being divided by what here? The actual verbatim CFI wording is "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components". Is this really easily derived or just derivable (but not easily)? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Purplebackpack89. Aryamanarora (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Purplebackpack89. Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)