Talk:thank ya so much

RFD discussion: May–July 2017
Also thank ya very much and thank ya so very much. Equinox ◑ 23:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See ya, also seeya and see ya. DCDuring (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am against the deletion of such eye dialect phrase variants. They do add to the dictionary, even though it is of the smallest manner. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just a phrase containing an eye dialect word. Kiwima (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete these and all similar (e.g. thank ye very much, thank ya very much, thank u very much, thank yu very much, etc.). I do not believe that we should have dictionary entries for all these permutations of nonstandard spellings of words within a phrase, nor should they be listed as "alternative forms". Do we want "ya", "ye", "yer", "u", "yu" forms for every phrase containing the words "you"? Surely not. And multiply that up by variants of other words within a phrase, e.g. fank yer very much, and the result is a vast amount of dross, essentially. On another point, I question whether thank you so much should exist anyway. Isn't it sum of parts? thank you very much, to which it points, seems to be justified on account of sense 2, but is "thank you so much" ever used in that sense? Mihia (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You guys seem to miss the point. They should exist simply because they are attested and because they are not SOP. I don't care how "useless" they are to this project or how much "space they clog up" here. They're useful simply because they have meaning and they're there, and thus should have entries. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Far from "missing the point", I actually provided a link showing attestation for "fank yer very much" to make the point, in my opinion, that just because some permutation of nonstandard spellings has at some time been written down, it doesn't mean that we need a dictionary entry for it. Dictionary entries for the inividual words, yes, of course. By the way, though, how is "Thank you so much" not SOP? I can't see it myself. Mihia (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "not explicitly forbidden by the rules" and "useful". No set of rules can cover every possible undesirable permutation, which is why we have rfd for human beings to judge on what to delete. For instance, I don't think CFI explicitly bans senses for three such as "forty seven minus forty four", "a dozen missing nine", etc. That doesn't mean we should have them- not that we could have all of them if we tried.
 * The use to the one poor, deluded person that thinks they're going to get any information from an eye-dialect alternative form entry for a questionably-idiomatic phrase is far outweighed by the harm caused to all the others who have to wade through pages of meaningless filler in order to find anything. Every piece of mindless, non-informative i-dotting lowers the opinion of our dictionary for those unfortunate enough to run across it.
 * You mean well, but you spend too much of your time testing the limits on uselessness. Please find something better to do. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The 'three such as "forty seven minus forty four"' argument does not make much sense to me: it is not a separate sense but rather an alternative definition of an existing sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Abstain. The deletion rationale could be, this is sum of parts, where the sum is not exactly a sum but rather "thank you so much".replace("you", "ya"); put differently, this can be figured out from thank you so much and ya. From my standpoint, it is not a strict application of the sum of parts rationale. there ya go is from 2008; see ya is from 2006; smell ya later is from 2006‎; thank ya is from 2016. "fank yer very much" does not seem attested, responding to argument made above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you must be seeing different Google results from me. Mihia (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Mihia: If you post three links to attesting quotations (WT:ATTEST), we can check. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * TBH, there is no need for anyone to "check" anything. I see several uses of that phrase in Google results. If you don't, then no big deal, it is only one example to make the general point that "fank/thank" multiplied by "you/u/ya/yer/yu/etc." is potentially a large space, and ditto, or even more so, with other phrases, and that, IMO, even if attested, we do not need to list all of this profusion as separate dictionary entries. Mihia (talk)
 * Yes, we do. I still say it should stay, and if any of those Mihia listed are attested, they should be added as well. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not every hit on Google meets WT:ATTEST's "use in permanently recorded media". does not look promising. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see nine book hits from four different authors. Do you not see those? Mihia (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see only one book, perhaps because of my location. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Update: I'd like to add another one I have found: "thank u so much". Equinox ◑ 01:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete this and the u variant. - [The] DaveRoss  11:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This term and other variants mentioned in the above discussion deleted; I see consensus that it is not necessary to provide so many variants, particularly when they are readily discernible from, , , and so on. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)