Talk:tonsils

tonsils
Sense: Denoting fullness in the phrase to the tonsils. It doesn't mean "fullness" in that phrase (*"to the fullness"). The phrase means "fully". DCDuring TALK 00:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or possibly RFV, which would require cleaning up the sense just to make it suitable for RFV. Just delete it IMO, let's not waste two months on citing something we don't even understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the plural of tonsil, used figuratively in one phrase. We should have that phrase, linked to from [ [tonsils]] and [[tonsil]], but not have a separate sense of tonsils or tonsil. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added that sense two weeks ago after creating a page for “to the tonsils”. My point was: someone who doesn't understand a sentence with to the tonsils could look it up at tonsils and not necessarily browse down to the "Derived terms" section (where I also added it); so I was listing this sense and forwarding it to the phrase.

As for the definition, I have now amended it to « Top or brim, denoting fullness or completeness as the phrase to the tonsils:. » -- if there's an inadequacy, why don't you amend it instead of deleting it? Way to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And please explain that talk about "citing something we don't even understand"? to the tonsils is plain and cited (4 from Google Books, 1 from Wodehouse). Is it up next for the chopping block? 62.147.24.224 19:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If "to the tonsils" were a more obscure metaphor such special treatment might be warranted. The construction this exemplifies has many forms to each of which the argument would apply: "elbows", "gills", "eyeballs", "eyes", "ears", among human parts, such terms as "rafters" in buildings, and "heavens" and "skies" in a larger arena. I don't think that we should be "helping" users looking for this particular application of these terms at the expense of those who are using the entry for other purposes. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, now that's one reasoning I can understand; indeed, the similar expressions I listed as synonyms don't get any more than a passing mention in "Derived terms" at their main word either, though I'm not sure it always makes for a more useful dictionary. Also, why didn't you provide this reasoning upfront? The original reason you gave for deletion looked to me like trying to give a dog a bad name and hang him -- anyway I don't care any more; you can hang Fido. 62.147.25.193 10:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sense deleted; Related terms link considered sufficient in entry. --EncycloPetey 22:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)