Talk:to have

RFD discussion: June 2014
Redirect to page have. I don't even know how Wiktionary allowed that to stay. Isn't this against our rules? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but should we have to have and to hold?   D b f  i  r  s   07:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If to have and to hold is an idiomatic phrase that is attested, I say yes. But the to have entry is just bogus. I say delete still. I don't think any "to" things are necessary as redirects. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I intended delete. It just reminded me of the longer (missing) phrase that I think is idiomatic, and I would add if I was sure of its exact meaning.  Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss it.  I might add it to requested entries.    D b f  i  r  s   12:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can't see the point of this. Equinox ◑ 11:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I still say delete and I have another reason. You know how some entries might have had something else on it before it became a redirect? Well this didn't even happen. This page was created solely to redirect to have, see the history for details. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I doubt that many would search for "to have" rather than "have". I strongly believe that it is not worthwhile to have redirects of this form for every English verb. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete still. What surprises me is how this redirect has been here since 2006 and no one but a bot even noticed. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We undoubtedly have many hundreds of entries that all would agree should be deleted. I doubt that many would form large groups that could be handled en masse. Thus they need individual RfDs. In contrast we have about 125 total items (headings) on RfD now. That is, we would flood the process by going after them systematically. Not to say that we shouldn't eliminate those we stumble across, especially if we think they are not likely to be controversial. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Deleted, perhaps a bit speedily, as a bad redirect. - -sche (discuss) 23:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)