Talk:rear front

RFD discussion: January–December 2023
Probably SOP. There are a few military meanings of front, which may or may not be a valid argument for keeping (or for deletion, for that matter) Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Administrators ought to block Wonderfool User:Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais already, protecting the project against this little playful devil. This RFD ought to be dismissed; Wonderfool ought not be allowed to create RFD nominations. Wonderfool's social standing ought to be demolished. Wonderfool ought to pledge to stop using multiple accounts, stop editing irresponsibly, and pledge to become a respectable adult citizen of the English Wiktionary. Wonderfool ought to stop being a playful child in the sense of little funny mischievous rascal and become a responsible adult; age-wise, it is probably about time. Wonderfool is one of the most useful and productive editors the English Wiktionary ever had and ought to do much better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I replaced the original Webster link, which no longer worked. DonnanZ (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Might be one for RFV since I can't find any examples of this in actual use outside of dictionaries. In earlier specialist military dictionaries it's used as an adjective or adverb, and refers to the whole formation, not a single rank, e.g. . There may be a game of telephone at work: the gloss copied from Webster's 1913 is "The rear rank of a body of troops when faced about and standing in that position", Worcester's 1847 has "a company or body of men when faced about, and standing in that position", citing Crabb; Crabb 1823 has "a term applied to a battalion, troop, or company, when it is faced about, and stands in that position". For the RFD as such, I would say keep since the meaning of the term, judging from the source I linked which essentially defines it as the troops individually facing backwards without the formation itself being rotated, is not really straightforward. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for scrapping my effort. DonnanZ (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Definition's word for word from Webster's and seems to be wrong so I'm afraid there's no reason to remove the notice, it's re-pointed to the right entry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-pointed to a load of other stuff too. Anyway, it seems to be archaic, I don't know what was in vogue in 1913, the year of my father's birth. DonnanZ (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've RFVed it and commented about the apparent POS there. - -sche (discuss) 00:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Deleted via RFV, for lacking citations of idiomatic use in anything like this sense in any part of speech. - -sche (discuss) 00:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September–December 2023
Per discussion at RFD, finding out whether this is actually citable in any sense as specific as the one provided in the entry — and if so, in what sense, and in what part of speech — would help determine whether it's idiomatic or keepable. For reference, here is the definition in an old dictionary, where it seems more adjectival than nounal: The only earlier cites I spot seem quite SOP, simply describing a number of fronts (the left front on the left, the right front, the rear front, etc): - -sche (discuss) 00:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1743, Humphrey Bland, A Treatise of Military Discipline, page 110:
 * When the Division of Drummers in the Rear of the Rear Face beats a March, they are all to face and march towards that Front, thus: The Platoons of Granadiers wheel, as before, towards that Front. The Front Face goes to the Right-about on their Left Heels. [...] After which, they are all to march towards the Rear Front, as long as the March continues beating, [...]
 * Only instance I could find in the wild: "no disciplined army understands the right about, rear-front march, better" (1828). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything aside from Webster 1913 seems to point to it being a front-back analog of upside down, which is an adverb or adjective. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)