Talk:signed in blood

Request for verification
This phrase - signed in blood - doesn't yet have a page, and I am wondering whether the citations could be deemed sufficiently idiomatic to justify this as an entry, in face of the SoP policy. __meco 10:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't really seem like a question for RFV. Once a specific idiomatic sense has been suggested, RFV is for determining if the citations support it, and RFD is for determining if it really is idiomatic; but until then, it's hard to give an "advisory opinion". —Ruakh TALK 22:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC
 * Folks have brought that kind of thing to WT:TR for the kind of non-committal response that one gets. It might be easier just to make the entry (for a lemma form) with the best definition you can and, perhaps, a single quotation. This is a wiki, after all. It might be that the non-SoP entry for this is in blood, with redirects from the most common two or three verb form collocations (eg, signing in blood, written in blood). DCDuring TALK 23:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Striking, since it looks like the discussion is very dead. —Ruakh TALK 01:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)