Talk:per nom

per nom
As per CFI --Keene 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all, as properly tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as barely idiomatic in the first place. DAVilla 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per DAVilla. —RuakhTALK 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, WMF jargon not specific to Wiktionary, properly tagged. -- Visviva 11:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per DAVilla; a horrible phrase, by the way. JackLumber 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Being new to Wikipedia, I was unfamiliar with this term and was glad to see it defined here. Incidentally I agree with JackLumber that it's an annoying phrase and I don't personally like it, but it is in common enough usage that a definition is useful.  (Would a note that it is not considered preferable by some be too pedantic?  Or is it generally accepted and we're just being curmudgeons?)  If anything, the page should be expanded to better indicate usage rather than simply indicating what it abbreviates.  --Carychan 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

per nom
SoP. Not sure about attestability, but that's secondary it's SoP. See. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. -- Prince Kassad 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note I listed this here because the default deletion summary for RFV is "Failed RFV; do not re-enter without valid citations" while for RFD it's "Failed RFD or RFDO; do not re-enter". If this failed RFV and were reentered with valid citations, I'd just nominate it here as SoP.
 * BTW (not relevant to this entry) quite a few of Category:WMF jargon may be unattestable. I'm considering nominating a few of them at RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as SoP. — Beobach 01:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, perma-non-per nom per nom. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Replace with pointing to WT:GLOSS. DCDuring TALK  15:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, replaced with soft redirect to WT:GLOSS. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)