Talk:never change a running system

RFV discussion: April–June 2023
It seems like a pseudo-anglicism, as opposed to an actual English proverb, and thus doesn't belong under an English language header. Megathonic (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems SoP. It is a flat, boring definition of more colorful and common expressions like if it ain't broke don't fix it. IOW, it seems more deserving an RfD. DCDuring (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Easy to verify. Sending to WT:RFDE. This, that and the other (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April 2023–January 2024
It seems like a pseudo-anglicism, as opposed to an actual English proverb, and thus doesn't belong under an English language header. Megathonic (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems SoP. It is a flat, boring definition of more colorful and common expressions like if it ain't broke don't fix it. IOW, it seems more deserving an RfD. DCDuring (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Delete. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Remark. It is obviously a variation of, which I think is a far more common saying than . --Lambiam 10:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - it’s a proverb, and which is not something that can be deduced from the constituents alone. It has essentially the same meaning as . Theknightwho (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per TKW. It's not entirely SOP because of the potential polysemy of "running", e.g. it's not, in this case, just telling you to shut down a programme before you make changes to it, which might be the more natural interpretation out of context. It has at least one third-party dictionary entry (Farlex Dictionary of Idioms). I've also added various quotations citing it as a proverb. It's true that this apparently originated in Germany but it isn't a pseudo-Anglicism in the sense that, say, is; it makes perfect sense in English and looks widely attested in English-language publications. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - the proverb is not covered by "winning team" since it applies to systems (machines, processes, methods, etc). The team can be winner becasue of the methods or tactics their members use, meantime the team remains the same, changing their system may get them to lose.


 * Kept P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)