Talk:inception flashback

RFD discussion: August 2022–May 2023
This is either sum of parts with inception (sense 2 - something recursive, multi-layered) or worse, it's a sum of parts with Inception (the movie) - most of the citations use a capital I and seem to be explicitly referring to the movie. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Sense 2 of is a decade-old definition that most people wouldn't be familiar with, making  a non-obvious term. Additionally, if the term is actually, it's definitely not SOP, as the film's title isn't a dictionary entry in the first place (and is being used idiomatically). Compare , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . Binarystep (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If "it's a new term" makes it not SOP, then "inception + literally anything" would be a phrase. I also think there is a difference between a item named after something or someone, and the SOP naming of an aspect of a thing. You can find lots of semi-idiomatic uses of "Star Wars plot" (just look at reviews of the film Eragon for instance - "it's definitely a Star Wars plot plopped into the LOTR world") but it means "a plot like Star Wars" and users would be better served looking up Star Wars on Wikipedia. Similarly, plenty of examples of "a Metallica riff" (a riff that sounds like Metallica) or "a CSI procedural" (a police procedural in the style of CSI). I would consider these SOP. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "If 'it's a new term' makes it not SOP, then 'inception + literally anything' would be a phrase."
 * WT:FRIED. If a term's meaning is ambiguous, it's not SOP. Additionally, there are a finite number of phrases using the word in this way, so we won't have entries for "inception + literally anything". We should, however, have entries for attestable phrases with this format, similar to how we have, , and , but not  or.
 * "I also think there is a difference between a item named after something or someone, and the SOP naming of an aspect of a thing. You can find lots of semi-idiomatic uses of 'Star Wars plot' (just look at reviews of the film Eragon for instance - 'it's definitely a Star Wars plot plopped into the LOTR world') but it means 'a plot like Star Wars' and users would be better served looking up Star Wars on Wikipedia. Similarly, plenty of examples of 'a Metallica riff' (a riff that sounds like Metallica) or 'a CSI procedural' (a police procedural in the style of CSI). I would consider these SOP."
 * These terms are often more idiomatic than they seem. Take, for instance. Is it referring to the franchise as a whole, or a specific work? The term only refers to plots reminiscent of A New Hope, but that's not necessarily obvious at first glance. is another one that should arguably be added if it's citable, since  doesn't mean  on its own. Even if I were to concede that these specific examples are SOP,  is a bit different in that it refers to an element not present in the thing it's referencing. It'd be one thing if the term was e.g.  (defined as a dream within a dream), but as it is this term is significantly more idiomatic than your RFD suggests. Binarystep (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Two of the three cites provided are capitalized, which means that the writer was referencing the movie directly. We shouldn't have entries for or, because the terms are transparently
 * "an X in the style of the X in Y". - TheDaveRoss  12:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a set phrase as I initially believed. Binarystep (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Deleted. - TheDaveRoss  13:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)