Talk:overground

RFV discussion: August–November 2022
Can we verify that the word overground, with a small o (rather than the proper noun Overground), is used as a noun sense referring to the trains running overground?

I have only heard of the use of this word as an adjective, as in the phrase overground train or similar. --Miklcct (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, it has a plural so it must be a noun. One citation added so far. Equinox ◑ 12:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The soaps in the shop come in two varieties, scented and non-scented. The scenteds sell much better than the non-scenteds. Look ma, I made some nouns! - TheDaveRoss  13:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless we start adding plurals to en-adj, yes, you did. Same thing with verbing nouns: the different forms necessitate different POS. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Or, and hear me out on this, grammar exists. Nouns being used attributively are not adjectives, adjectives being used nominally are not nouns, and nouns being used verbally are not verbs. As far as I can tell everything is an adverb, adverbs are very complicated. - TheDaveRoss  18:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not a question of the metaphysical reality of nounhood, adjectivity, or verbitude for a given usage. It's a question of whether uncommon, incidental usage of a term outside its main PoSes is worth tracking. Almost all English words can be used out side their principal PoS. Is it really worth it to trivially reword adjective definitions as noun definitions just to memorialize such de minimis usage? DCDuring (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What an idiotic comment :D Equinox ◑ 17:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do what I can. - TheDaveRoss  18:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Failed. - TheDaveRoss  13:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This leaves the valid, attestable plural orphaned, with no singular. This should not have failed, IMHO. Absurd. Equinox ◑ 00:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Equinox Just find one more cite and restore it then! It failed because it has two cites and the bar is three. I think it is silly to add every part of speech to every entry to reflect common grammatical transformations, but that is just my opinion. Clearly you and -sche and likely many others disagree. - TheDaveRoss  16:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, cited and restored accordingly. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think words are words. "Overgrounds" is a word because it's a noun and it has a plural and we might talk about the British and French overgrounds, and compare them. On the other hand, "whereuntos" is not a word because "whereunto" is not a noun and cannot have a plural. Simple as. Equinox ◑ 05:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that words are words, the question is always what is lexical and what is grammatical (and, I suppose, what is encyclopedic). If "overground" has become a noun in London it should be included, but merely being able to apply common grammatical transformations is not enough to show that a word exists. - TheDaveRoss  13:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)