Talk:regard

compulsory "as"
Oxford's learner dictionary reads "regard sb/sth (as sth)". How should this information be mentioned? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

in/at regard of
Historically, with regard to and in regard to have varied considerably in form, e.g. in regard of, at regard of. --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–July 2023
Rfv-sense "(Reddit, vulgar)". Per WT:DEROGATORY, derogatory terms must be attested. (Tagging user who added it: Zorya's Leshak.) — W.andrea (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I removed "retard" from the definition. I don't know whether the definition "A very bad stock trader" is considered derogatory for purposes of WT:DEROGATORY.
 * Is it intended to be something like rhyming slang? If so it would need to be under a separate Etymology section with the retard connection in the etymology. DCDuring (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is meant to very transparently/ironically evade a rule against using the word retard. - TheDaveRoss  18:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * RFV failed Monkey&#39;s gone to heaven (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)