Talk:without hesitation

RFD discussion: June–December 2018
This seems SoP and not sufficiently idiomatic to me. One also sees constructions like "without pausing", "without pausing to think", "without waiting", "without another moment's time", etc. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete without hesitation! – Julia ☺ ☆ • formerly Gormflaith • 03:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * :] --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Without delay is also common and also SoP. Wonder if we can move the translation somewhere. Equinox ◑ 04:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that. Looking at a few Maori dictionaries, it looks like the creator of the page didn't even fully understand the word--it's more like "steadfast, unwavering" than it is "immediately", but seems to apply to both senses. I don't know Maori really at all, but based on the dictionaries, I think that "unwavering" is a good choice because it covers both the immediacy and the firmness. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's actually a verb: "to be steadfast, unwavering". Perhaps move the translation to stand firm, or something like that? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe all Maori adjectives are stative verbs, and I'm not sure what our convention is with such languages- it would be odd to have no translation for green because Maori treats it as "to be green". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fascinating--taking the "green" example, we currently have the Maori word for "to be green" as a translation of our adjective "green"--so to mimic that we could go with the first idea I put forth (which is now unstricken), and put it in "unwavering". --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 14:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 02:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2021–April 2022
Set phrase and lemmings (M-W, Collins). The other "similar" constructions mentioned in the original RFD ("without pausing," "without another moment's time," etc.) are much rarer, which confirms that this is a set phrase. Imetsia (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I support keeping strong set phrases even if explicable as SoP, but, for me personally, "without hesitation" doesn't quite pass muster. Mihia (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably not even useful, if someone doesn't know the meaning of hesitation but knows the meaning of without, they'll probably look for hesitation and not the whole phrase. Oppose undeletion, unless a compelling argument against it being SOP or showing that it's really useful is presented. —Svārtava (t•c) 04:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Could probably pass as a WT:THUB with and . Fytcha (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Does anyone feel this is necessary? Because in English specifically, it feels very SOP to me. DAVilla 22:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We need to keep some sort of a lid on "THUB", IMO. Mihia (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As well as the Italian (which prompted me to propose this undeletion in the first place). From a previous RFDN, I got the impression that the community preference was to keep these sorts of entries (at least the Italian ones). But it looks like that isn't the case for similar English expressions. Imetsia (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can make out, senza indugio word-for-word means "without hesitation", in which case I cannot accept that it justifies a "THUB" entry in English. (TBH, I don't really understand why it is not SoP in Italian.) In my opinion, "THUB" entries should be reserved for cases where translations in multiple languages are completely unlike word-for-word or part-by-part translations of the English (or of each other perhaps). Otherwise it could get silly. Mihia (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We have a great many similar entries (,, , , , , , etc.), some of which were challenged at RFDN and passed. It seems that the general community preference is to keep these entries, even against my own views of which entries we should delete. So we consider most of these entries set-phraseish enough to keep. On the item of itself, it's also worth noting that the lemming argument is particularly strong as the three leading Italian dictionaries (D-O, Treccani, Zingarelli) all include it. Imetsia (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Does recreating an RFD-deleted entry require RFD consensus if it has been deleted as a full article and the recreation is a THub that passes per WT:THUB? &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it does, especially given that the application of THUB is subjective (and that some users simply think THUB is not enough to keep an entry). Imetsia (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose undeletion per Svartava. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 00:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete without hesitation. Equinox ◑ 00:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Kept deleted —Svārtava (t/u) • 05:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted: SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The vote has been closed. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  06:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Misread Kept as Keep in Svārtava’s comment. — Sgconlaw (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)