Talk:pot-hole

RFV discussion: February–September 2016
Rfv-sense: "Used other than as an idiom: see pot,‎ hole"

I was unsure of whether to RFV or RFD, I think it might fail both. isn't an idiom it's a word. Are we going to add used other than as an idiom to as well? Anyway since this isn't rfd I'll challenge existence first and we'll worry about acceptability later. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * pot-hole is used to mean a hole for pots in several stove patents and perhaps in other objects, as well as the ground. I thought the usage example was clear enough. I wonder whether someone refers to the location of their stash as a pot-hole.
 * I think it is also used to refer to holes the size or shape of a pot, to holes that serve as pots, privy holes, and exceptions to marijuana laws, none of them common and few with three citations. That is, it seems that the combination is productive. Even if there were more than three instances on a single type of use, it would hardly justify a definition.
 * By my lights only three cites of distinct uses would be required to justify a "literal" combination definition. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's cite it first and worry about the rest later. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why should I bother citing it if I cannot understand what type of cites would be deemed acceptable? I don't care that much about the definition. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've added three citations of "pot-hole" meaning "hole atop a stove, for a pot", but I can also cite "pothole" with that sense (and have added it there), so those citations are using the "alternative form of pothole" sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing one, not three. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The three citations I found of pot-hole as "hole on a stove for a pot" are under the "alt form of pothole" sense because I can also find that sense with the spelling pothole. Hence, there's only one citation of pot-hole with a sense that pothole doesn't have. I think it's fine to RFV-fail that "&lit" sense. - -sche (discuss) 16:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The 1808 citation given could even just be a typo for "port-hole". - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)