Talk:phone it in

RFM discussion: November 2010–June 2016
Should be phone in, unless any of the three senses always takes 'it'. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Can you demonstrate any usage in any of the overlapping senses given that has another complement? DCDuring TALK 11:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Idiomatic sense 2 is cited. I'd be surprised if there was quantitatively significant usage in the idiomatic sense with an object other than "it". I don't think that senses 1 and 3 are citable in the sense of being clearly distinct from sense 2. Like call in, phone in might be worth an entry because the places to which one "phones/calls in" are restricted to some central or controlling locations. OTOH, it doesn't seem terribly idiomatic, except for the lack of transparency in the selection of the adverb "in". Sense 2 could probably be generalized to more clearly include senses 1 and 3 to the extent they exist. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Move #1, but not #2 or #3: #1 is usually "phone in", but #2 and #3 are usually "phone it in".  Add conjugations of phone it in.  Also, close this discussion as it's 16 months old.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved all senses since I can find examples where "phone it" takes an explicit direct object rather than "it" (e.g. from a review of Sharknado 2: "Some disaster movies phone in their awfulness, this one did not."). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)