Talk:you suck

why is this a seperate idiom, shouldn't it just all be part of suck? Both of the definitions you gave could/should be part of the suck definition. --Eean 21:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * ah, I see the 'category phrasebook'. I'm still not sure about it though. --Eean 21:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Assuming we have a phrasebook category at all, we might as well have well-known colloquialisms like this. The real value added is in providing an idiomatic translation: something that a native speaker would say in the similar situation.  BTW, I'm not convinced the Spanish translation is the best possible, but I did get it from a native speaker. -dmh 21:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Right, I see.


 * The problem with Spanish is that anything you choose would probably be a regionalism. And figuring all that out is hard. I'd say Spanish is worse then English on this. At least its worse for the international dictionary writers. --Eean 00:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Eean - there is nothing here that doesn't just go at "suck". I don't think it is common enough to warrant inclusion in the phrasebook. I'm going to recommend it for deletion for these reasons. &mdash; Paul G 11:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * (More Beer Parlour fodder follows)


 * I agree that the key test here is idomaticity. I can't think of any idiomatic usage that can't be deduced from the parts, and I don't know of any interesting non-literal translation (for example, one that didn't involve the word/inflection for "you", or which only held for "you" and not other pronouns).


 * I put this up partly because I'm a bit nervous as to how wide a net the "phrasebook" category (which I think is quite a useful idea) might cast. In particular, could a phrase that wouldn't otherwise merit inclusion merit a phrasebook entry.  Again, the key is idiomatic usage (and not so much frequency of use), with possible exceptions for very common or useful phrases.


 * By this reasoning, Where is the toilet? should probably be deleted in favor of Where is ..?, but How are you? is fine because it is not generally used literally.


 * In any case, I'm OK with deleting.  But let's make sure suck covers both senses.  -66.26.58.221 15:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) (-dmh)
 * If you pick up an entertaining phrase book such as from the Lonely Planet it would probably have phrases like 'you suck'. Whether something is an idiom or not isn't what merits inclusion in a phrase book. The point of a phrase book is too be able to speak a language without properly learning its gammar. I think we should keep the article, but only the translations. Phrase books do not have definitions. So, like where is the toilet?. It is extending the scope of Wiktionary a bit, but I think its useful.--Eean 08:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents of rfd prior to deletion: ==you suck== -	*you suck See my reasoning the discussion page, but also consider what others have said there about this page. &mdash; Paul G 11:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) -	** As I say in the discussion page, I'm fine with deleting it. -dmh 06:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) -	*** I suggested making it translation only on the talk page. -	--Eean 10:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) -	**** Deleted Polyglot 14:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now it's back (I found how to restore stuff) Enjoy Polyglot 23:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletion debate

 * I don't follow the argument about this phrase being part of the phrase book. This phrase to me is not idiomatic at all. You can simply replace the pronoun with a name or another pronoun and the meaning stays the same except now it applies to a different entity. It's just the sum of parts to me. Jamesjiao 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Print phrasebooks are not dictionaries either. They have hundreds of common phrases or constructions that occur in the everyday life of a foreigner visiting a country where a given language is spoken.


 * Here, the phrasebook is sometimes used as a means of keeping phrases that are SoP and would not meet any reasonable interpretation of CFI. This is such a phrase. The phrasebook notion does not seem to have interested anyone enough to make it into a well-defined project. Thus we have many entries that do not meet CFI that might merit inclusion in a phrasebook. They await someone with the vision to make a proper phrasebook component at WMF probably within en.wikt (like Wikisaurus) but perhaps not. DCDuring TALK 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Phrasebook is a redirect, so we have virtually no written policy on the phrasebook. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonsense. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't even in the phrasebook. --Yair rand 19:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted per this discussion. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly the kind of colloquial entry that would be in a subversive phrasebook. Certainly more colloquial than the stilted "what is your name". It certainly doesn't seem to be nonsense. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)