Talk:in one's eyes

RFD discussion: November 2020–February 2021
I may be missing something, but this look very SOP Returning2stadia (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The first sense is or should be a sum of parts. The second is idiomatic.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Both senses look OK to me. keep SemperBlotto (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Dentonius 08:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sense 2 certainly is not SOP; sense 1 might be, but I'm inclined to say it isn't because when the sun is in your eyes, it isn't literally [[in]] [[your]] [[eyes]]. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See sense 2 of, "the light and warmth which is received from the sun". That is in your eyes, just like dust can be in your eyes.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep (the second sense is idiomatic), but I note that we have . I don't know which should be the lemma. PUC – 11:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously (IMO) the latter; the idiomatic second sense (after a move now of ) is illustrated with “let my lord the king do that which is good in his eyes”, which is an obligatory grammatical transformation of *“let my lord the king do that which is good in the eyes of him”; the sense is not different from “And the thing was good in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of all his servants.” (KJV, Genesis 41:37). --Lambiam 15:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Def #2 doesn't look SoP at all. Khemehekis (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Superduperstrong Redirect to . We also do not have next to ; if created, it should be as a redirect. Same for  and similar entries; they should redirect to  etcetera and not be separate entries – as is already the case for, which redirects to  .  --Lambiam 17:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- If there were only one definition, it would be reasonable to redirect (if there were consensus. I would still vote "no" BTW.). But that is not the case. There are two definitions, which makes a re-direct unhelpful. @ Vox S : Just because the definition of "sun" includes "the light coming from the sun" (which, as an aside, I think is also incorrect, as that would in fact be sunlight or sunshine), it does not preclude other light sources such as "I could not see because the cop's torch was in my eyes." If the torch were literally in my eyes there would be protesters in the streets by now! -- A LGRIF  talk 16:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * — That other definition applies just as well to, like seen here: “The sun was directly in the eyes of the Yale backs”, or “the sun was not always in the eyes of the driver”. Just consider a dialogue like, “So you are saying the sun was not always in the eyes of the driver? – No, Your Honour, the sun was at all times in his eyes, up to the moment he reached the crossing.” Do the bolded segments belong to different lemmas? --Lambiam 16:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to per Lambiam. PUC – 19:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I to assume that some of you are prepared to redirect ALL the phrases in the form "prepn + one's + X" to "prepn + the X + of"? Please do not ask me to join you in this thankless and, I have to say, in the eyes of me, pointless task! I ask because it would appear you are intent on setting a precedent with this. If so, I will take you at the word of you and watch with glee the construction of yet another level of the Tower of Babel. -- A LGRIF  talk 17:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, not all such phrases uniformly. Note that our entry for does not redirect to *in the honour of – which is not idiomatic – but to . So any such redirects cannot be created blindly. Conceivably – I do not know any actual instances –   of could coexist with  the  of, in which the ambiguity of  someone's  must be resolved and a simple redirect is not possible. Consistency is not a strong point of Wiktionary, but if we had an entry for, it should be redirected to , if only for the simple reason that this expression has several senses, and such a redirect relieves us from the undesirable and practically impossible task to keep these in sync between distributed entries. One could argue for the creation of a (redirect) page for  to help in searching, but again, this cannot be done blindly: *by someone's dint does not make sense.  --Lambiam 16:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Although British coexists with US, one doesn’t use *in someone’s light in this idiomatic sense, so this does not create a varietal ambiguity.  --Lambiam 16:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Lambian. You have made my argument for me. Although it would seem you do not see it yet. -- A LGRIF  talk 23:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * From a grammar point of view, by the way, we don't generally use "of" in English with animate nouns. We use the possessive. So, it's not "the car of Sue". It's "Sue's car". &mdash; Dentonius 04:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care where it is kept, but it should be kept somewhere, at its current entry if that is what it takes. But the first sense should be . — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No consensus to delete: Not much of one to redirect either.  Saying  "Superduperstrong" does not a consensus make. Purplebackpack89</b></b> 14:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)