Talk:nice weather for ducks

fine weather for ducks
Redirect to Appendix:Snowclones/X weather for ducks, seeing as many different adjectives can be used. Per Chuck Entz: "Basically you can take Thesaurus:good, weed out everything that can't be used to describe good weather or-over-the-top superlatives, and just about anything else will work." PUC – 19:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose move to appendix. Well, we should have an entry for one of them (I suggest "nice", because it's the only one I've actually heard, and probably the most common). And we can redirect the others to that entry. We shouldn't move an entire legitimate phrase to the appendix when there is an overwhelming dominant form of it. Also, all these forms mean the same thing (rain!): usually a snowclone can change meaning depending on what you put into it. Equinox ◑ 02:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Equinox. A mainspace entry is probably more intuitive and easier to search for (compare discussion of once an Eagle, always an Eagle above), and is also how we usually handle situations where terms are synonyms, isn't it? We have go down the toilet and then entries like go down the khazi point to it, rather than to *Appendix:Snowclones/go down the X. Isn't the reason we have Appendix:Snowclones/X is the new Y that "pink is the new black" (pink is the new fashionable colour) is not synonymous with "fake is the new real" and neither of those is synonymous with "$20 an hour is the new $15 an hour", so we couldn't just redirect them all to pink is the new black (or whatever), we would have to define them all and we decided (for better or worse) not to? Here, we could hard- or soft-redirect them to one mainspace entry. - -sche (discuss) 05:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All right, but I'd prefer that entry to be (which, I think, we could put in Category:English non-constituents: ?) than, because I don't think it's a good idea to redirect any of those to an entry sporting an entirely different adjective. PUC – 09:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Grammatically it is a complete noun phrase and, therefore, a constituent. It just so happens that many incomplete idioms are not constituents. If we would want to track those (which seems like a good idea), we should create a different category and start to populate it by looking at members of Category:English non-constituents. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as is. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Google Ngrams "fine" seems to be the oldest, just before 2000 "lovely" was clearly in the lead but now "nice" and "good" are trading places. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "lovely" going up in 1953 is probably due to The Stars Are Singing which includes a song with that title. The rise before 2000 may partially be caused by some dictionaries. (several entries of NTC's Dictionary) Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep all, have nice weather for ducks as the lemma. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep all &mdash; Dentonius 08:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep nice weather for ducks and redirect the others. 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Kept as to all. bd2412 T 05:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)