Talk:heckuva job

Requests for deletion - kept
SoP. What's next? heckuva good time? heckuva guy? heckuva building? heckuva computer?&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 19:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

delete. But glad we have helluva and heckuva. DCDuring TALK 19:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Dmol 19:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you read the article? This is a jocular idiomatic phrase that means the opposite of its literal words. How could it be a sum of parts? Dmcdevit·t 22:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The cites in the article don't quite support its claim. In nos. 2 and 5 it simply can't mean "bad job"; rather, it must mean "good job", and be meant ironically. This is because you simply can't say "President Bush continues to do a bad job installing unqualified cronies in key government posts", or "So let me say: Bad job, Paulie! Mission accomplished!" Further, in #3 it actually means "good job" without irony. In #4 it could potentially mean "bad job", but I really just don't buy it. From context, I think it's pretty clear that here, too, the writer means "good job" ironically. That leaves #1. I could really go either way on #1, but at this point Occam's Razor suggests that it's also an ironic "good job". A more accurate definition would therefore be " A good job." Now, do we really want to include this just because it tends to be used ironically? If so, we're missing a sense at bully. —Ruakh TALK 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My reason for being interested in this phrase is not just because it is used ironically, but because it has a specific ironic usage in US politics and a different history from other possible ironic uses. It is a common set phrase, and wouldn't mean the same thing if it were replaced by synonymous words, since it alludes to Bush's quote. I am sure the definition can use refining, but it's not at all like "heckuva building." Dmcdevit·t 23:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dmcdevit. We have useful things to say about it, so we might as well keep it and say them. —Ruakh TALK 12:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A plausible argument has been made that this passes the fried egg test as written (implying "certain social knowledge"). So weak keep, I guess.  But it's annoying to have an entry that is entirely compositional except for the usage note.  -- Visviva 03:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your reasoning, but it seems to me that the "certain social knowledge" is carried by heckuva alone, and is not limited to use in the collocation. --EncycloPetey 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely keep. I read lots of politics and this comes up all the time. Language Lover 20:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Kept, unfortunately.—msh210 ℠ 18:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's also been used here in Britain, although to a lesser extent. I'm not sure if I can vote or not being an IP address, but I'd give you my 0.02 cents. --82.42.237.84 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January–April 2019
This passed a decade ago, so perhaps I am wrong to list it. Doing it anyway. has been combined with lots of nouns, and we have that sense covered. Sarcastic usage does not equate to idiomacity. - TheDaveRoss  21:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this any different from the interjection sense of good job? bd2412 T 00:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in commonality, but no I don't think it is much different from that or or  or  or any of hundreds of other similar constructions which can all be used literally or sarcastically. -  TheDaveRoss  13:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For me personally, if someone says, I take that at face value (within the context of the discourse, of course). If someone says , or more specifically writes it with that spelling, that does unavoidably bring to mind the sarcastic use by association with Hurricane Katrina and the Bush administration's bungled response.  That association might be stronger for me as an American, than it might be for other English readers in other countries.
 * I'm not sure if this has sufficiently lexicalized, however, to merit inclusion for this specific sense. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that WT:CFI states: "The straightforward sarcastic use of irony, understatement and hyperbole does not usually qualify for inclusion". — SGconlaw (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that applies here, as this is not just straightforward. Due to the association with political history, the specific collocation  winds up meaning the opposite of its initial sense.  See also, where the sarcastic sense is strong enough to merit at least a usage note.  For that matter, I wonder if the sarcastic usage is what merits the entry at all -- without that,  is purely SOP as  + .  If we keep , should we not also keep ?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there was a long discussion about sarcastic usage concerning (now archived on the entry's talk page), and the RFD only failed because fewer than two-thirds of participants voted for deletion – the ratio was 5:3 in favour of deletion. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a reason that no consensus is needed for any person in the world to add a sense or create an entry here, but a strong consensus - basically a supermajoritarian one - is needed to remove a sense or an entry. It only takes a small proportion of the relevant community of interest to find a term useful to warrant including it in the dictionary. bd2412 T 02:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, keep . Per utramque cavernam 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jberkel: seems fairly lexicalised to me, while  not so. Maybe I shouldn't vote on this one though. Per utramque cavernam 10:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, move useful information / usage examples into . Jberkel 16:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm curious --, would you also advocate deleting ? If not, what distinction do you make between our handling of  and ?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at usage patterns this might be material for Appendix:Snowclones (“Heckuva job, X”). I'd say that is fairly idiomatic and therefore warrants an entry of its own (are there similar constructions “[noun] a lot”? can't think of any). I think it's ok to delete the entry and add a usage note to . As you say, it doesn't seem to be fully lexicalized, and I noticed that many usages are followed by an explanation. – Jberkel 11:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing how "heckuva job, X" is a snowclone unlike, say, "X is the new X". What is supposed to substitute for the X? — SGconlaw (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A name replacing the original “Brownie”, sometimes with added -ie/-y/-ey e.g. “Heckuva Job, Trumpie/Barack/Bidey etc.” – Jberkel 11:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From the quotations, I don't see the term used exclusively in the format "heckuva job, X", though. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am relatively new to the idea of "snowclone", but I wouldn't think that tacking the name of the person being addressed onto the end of a phrase would count. Mihia (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but as I mentioned in some cases the names are changed (Trumpie/Bidey), so it's not simply “tacking the name at the end of a phrase”. It doesn't seem to be widely used though. – Jberkel 11:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WT:CFI states "[...] Terms which are seldom or never used literally are not covered by this rule, and can be included on their own merits." heckuva job has "(US politics, usually ironic)" label. Do the two things said yield keep? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly. That was the reason I suggested that should be kept. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Going by my experience, delete: it's no different from "heck of a job" and "constructually" (lol) no different from "heck of an anything". Equinox ◑ 22:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google Books does not suggest that this is mostly ironic, the oft-quoted "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." was intended as a commendation. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)