Talk:twenty-five past

SOP
, do you agree that this merits deletion? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do. Feel free to nom it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April–August 2016
Sum of parts. Similar constructions could be made with a wide variety of numbers. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, but a series of appendices on the formation of numerical time words, in English first but in other languages as well, would be desirable. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. We already have this sense at past:
 * (postmodifier) Following expressions of time to indicate how long ago something happened; ago.
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * twenty-five past does not mean "twenty-five ago", nor does it mean "twenty-five (minutes or hours or seconds) ago".
 * It means "twenty-five minutes past an hour previously mentioned or otherwise derived from context. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands. Possibly a full sentence would make a good example for the phrasebook, though, e.g. "it's twenty-five past ten". Equinox ◑ 10:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been a pretty good usage note covering this at past. The problem with the Usage notes IMO is that it wants to link to SoP examples. DCDuring TALK 13:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The entry was meant as a translation target or a phrasebook entry or both. No-one says it's idiomatic. Convert to either of these and keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are we supposed to keep these so someone can feel good because they think they are making a valuable contribution by adding a translation? Is there any evidence that anyone looks up such a term?
 * What makes this more of target than twenty past or twenty-two past ?
 * Advocating that this kind of entry be retained as a translation target (a non-CFI argument to begin with) discredits the use of that argument for other entries, IMO.
 * Some things are better not treated as lexical items. This class is one of them. Perhaps it belongs at WikiTranslationDrill. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Time expressions are common in phrasebooks and they introduced in the first lessons of most language textbooks. I just think they belong here. No, this particular expression is not better than twenty past or twenty-two pastbd2412 T 04:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)