Talk:who are you and what have you done with someone

who are you and what have you done with someone
I don't think this is a set phrase. SemperBlotto 10:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I strongly disagree. It is a common set phrase with widespread use on the web, in books, in groups, even in Google news. However, it should drop the someone at the end, as the name (or subject) varies. Strong keep.--Dmol 10:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This needs to be covered somehow. I can't see another way to do it other than with this entry. Rename per above, but keep. Some citations would help a lot. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a set phrase excluding the someone. It should be easy enough to find it in fictional dialogue. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added cites. This is fairly common in the US. Is it common elsewhere? I believe that it comes from late 19th century potboiler fiction and drama involving assumed identity. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps without someone, but I think with, though I can't put my finger on why. Anyway, the one can redirect to the other. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, we don't seem to have the sense of one I just used. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep. It's strange enough that people will be wanting to look it up. ---&gt; Tooironic 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Definitely a set phrase with a non-obvious, non-SOP meaning.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Definitely a set formula. —Ruakh TALK 00:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Keep. --Daniel. 01:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Synonym could be what have you done with the real someone --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep ... IF it is correctly worded. I thought it was who are you and what you have done ("have" and "you" inverted) -- A LGRIF  talk 17:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm getting confused with "We know who you are and what you have done" Sorry. -- A LGRIF  talk 17:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Kept. Kept title, as I see no agreement to move. I've created a redirect from the title with someone, though. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

RFM discussion: October 2012–September 2014
Move to who are you and what have you done with? 'Someone' isn't literally part of the phrase, is it? 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, usually a complement that falls outside the more set part of a phrase is omitted unless it conveys information such as reflexivity. The sole value of someone is to convey the idea that it relates to a person, but that is adequately accomplished by you, IMO. DCDuring TALK 02:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't this just a snowclone? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is no per se reason to exclude them, provided we can come up with a meaningful headword. The biggest problem with most snowclones is that many of them have two or more slots that have some particular semantic relationship. We have not found a way of representing such snowclones that seemed likely to help normal user. DCDuring TALK 05:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Expired with no action taken. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)