Talk:twenty-five to

RFD discussion: January–March 2020
And five to, ten to, quarter to, twenty to, five past, ten past, quarter past, and the attributive forms five-to, ten-to, quarter-to, twenty-to, five-past, ten-past, and quarter-past. The info is already at to and past; there's no need for such specific numbers. We could just as easily have forty-one past. (Sidenote: there is no noun sense at quarter for a quarter hour.) Ultimateria (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "forty-one past" scarcely exists as a phrase by itself AFAIAA (though "forty-one minutes past (the hour)" is possible of course). The only ones in practical use, as far as I know, are the multiples of five. I would be inclined to keep these as sufficiently idiomatic. The attributive forms may be deleted per this vote, provided the definitions contain no more content than "attributive form of unhyphenated phrase".  Mihia (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not true that only multiples of 5 are in regular use. It's just that it's unusual to use these forms for larger numbers. I regularly use and hear things like seven to (more common) or seven after (less common without the hour). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The translations are translations of, specifically, “twenty-five to two” (1:35 am or pm), and not of twenty-five to the next hour, which could also be 12:35 or 2:35. --Lambiam 14:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Tribbles! Delete them before they multiply. It is best handled at to. If all of these tos are kept then the equivalent tills will need to be entered also (five till, ten till, quarter till, &c.) -Mike (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And the afters:, , , etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Canonicalization (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)