Talk:ghost corridor


 * Didn't you mean to delete this? PUC – 17:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just one sense, not the whole entry. - TheDaveRoss  17:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, sorry. PUC – 17:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November 2019–April 2020
"A corridor of a building that has been connected to supposed ghostly activity." Sum of parts. Note that the given citation is for "ghost's corridor". Equinox ◑ 14:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per "retiring" above, I do feel there is a possible case for including a potentially SoP entry when a non-SoP entry is also listed. Someone could look up a "ghost corridor" that was intended in the "haunted house" sense, and get terribly confused. The logic for keeping this is IMO just as strong as the "coalmine" argument. Mihia (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the way we usually handle this is with, as on dead president. Delete and add in its place. - -sche (discuss) 04:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per dead president, the entry would then read "Used other than with a figurative or idiomatic meaning: see ghost, corridor". I am not completely sure that users would readily understand from this the meaning "A corridor of a building that has been connected to supposed ghostly activity". Mihia (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted - TheDaveRoss  17:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)