Talk:number games

RFV
"The use of inappropriate statistics to reflect a desired result (usually misleading, or omitting critical assumptions.)" The current citation doesn't really back this up, it just comes across as a metaphor. I'm not sure if this should be at RFD, as if it is just a metaphor rather than an idiom, it may not meet CFI (that is, WT:CFI). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The meaning seems about right. I think it is in widespread use in this sense. It should be at RfD, IMO. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also numbers game, numbers games. DCDuring TALK 13:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A few examples from the British Hansard:
 * At least in the specific context of politics, it seems to be pretty well attested. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (Addendum I personally think it's more than simply the sum of its parts - the Rooker quote from 1985 in particular definitely seems to be giving it a meaning beyond simply "a game involving numbers").Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your cites are not for the actual term in question which is number game, not numbers game. Citations really belong in the entry, in your case [[numbers game]], preferably, IMO, under the sense to which they apply or on the corresponding citations page. The idiomaticity question may revolve around whether there is some value to pointing out that this is almost always a pejorative term that does not really refer to any specific real phenomenon in its widespread use. Personally, I think it is still SoP as there is a broad use of game: in a pejorative sense. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At least in the specific context of politics, it seems to be pretty well attested. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (Addendum I personally think it's more than simply the sum of its parts - the Rooker quote from 1985 in particular definitely seems to be giving it a meaning beyond simply "a game involving numbers").Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your cites are not for the actual term in question which is number game, not numbers game. Citations really belong in the entry, in your case [[numbers game]], preferably, IMO, under the sense to which they apply or on the corresponding citations page. The idiomaticity question may revolve around whether there is some value to pointing out that this is almost always a pejorative term that does not really refer to any specific real phenomenon in its widespread use. Personally, I think it is still SoP as there is a broad use of game: in a pejorative sense. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your cites are not for the actual term in question which is number game, not numbers game. Citations really belong in the entry, in your case [[numbers game]], preferably, IMO, under the sense to which they apply or on the corresponding citations page. The idiomaticity question may revolve around whether there is some value to pointing out that this is almost always a pejorative term that does not really refer to any specific real phenomenon in its widespread use. Personally, I think it is still SoP as there is a broad use of game: in a pejorative sense. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've cited number games (I only formatted two citations for the "lottery" sense, but you can find more ). Smurray cited numbers game. If you think they're SOP (and I think they may be), take them to WT:RFD, but make sure the definitions are spot-on, first, lest people see some baseless/wrong element of the definition as non-SOP and as grounds for keeping the terms. - -sche (discuss) 00:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)