Talk:Hail fellow well met

A few points to consider

I think the term is used, but on an infrequent basis and as and adjective only (I've never heard it as a greeting). I'm sure that I have heard it or seen it most often in literature, but I have no examples to share. Nevertheless, while "archaic", it is used these days and that should be noted. Also, because it is rarely if ever used as a greeting anymore, I think that the adjective version should be discussed first foremost. It is most interesting to me that it is somewhat perjorative. I always wondered what the "well met" meant, and I assume it's that they are the ones busy adding to their social standing with the more people they meet (having the longer list of "friends" on Facebook). This later interpretation needs more research. RichRico (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest that it's used as a noun far more than as an adjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

an opinion

just delete this...................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.158.58 (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

please delete

"The explanation I have from an old English girlfriend"  : needs to be deleted. not encyclopedical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.106.115 (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits of this day

Please note, in the edits of this day, as extreme as they might seem, essentially no preexisting content has been deleted. It has simply been re-structured, so all sentences and paragraphs covering the same topics are together, and then the topics were given initial section tags consistent with the idea of an article on an idiom.

Then after evaluating the content, I marked the article as being in need of expert attention, in linguistics in particular, because it is an article almost completely derived from a editors WP:OR (prohibited "original research") based on dictionaries and literature appearances (or otherwise, via plagiarism), rather than secondary source discussions of the idiom. This is stated because there was, prior to this day's edit, essentially no content in the article that is properly sourced:

• the FreeDictionary citation is a poor source, and as of this day, URL-only, and poorly utilized (with just cut and paste of a hodgepodge of information from it);
• the James Joyce is a primary source, and a complex one, and so the WP editor could only offer a vague, and insubstantial interpretation of the idiom's appearance (though even if an expert, we would not be interested in it, rather, requiring as WP does to see a scholars opinion taken from a cited source (and not someone publishing their opinions here for the first time); and
• the third stray source, is again, URL only, and a poor source (song lyrics site).

Any sources that now appear, other than these three, were added during the course of this day's editing.

Note, finally, the refimprove tags date to 2011, and so this current article, with its bare URLs, lack of sources throughout, OR-statements based on the primary sources, and rampant editor speculation otherwise, is at present, today's efforts notwithstanding, still a poor, non-authoritative WP article. I made it as good as it can be, on short order, by completing the Joyce source, adding further sourced content, calling for the URL-only issue to be addressed (thanks to Bull), and tagging every cribbed or unattributed sentence. Le Prof. 73.210.154.39 (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I’ve taken out this ridiculous and pointless overtagging by this IP. DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

It offers nothing. It's messy article about an idiomatic and uncommon turn of phrase that is easily understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnurrfles (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Schnurrfles: Okay. Then nominate it for deletion at this link. RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Either Delete It, Fix It or Leave It Alone

The main thing that makes this unworthy as an encyclopaedia article is neither the subject nor the sources; it is the insane level of tagging. Nearly half the article (2662 characters out of 6047 after stripping TOC et al) is complaining about the article whilst adding nothing but visual noise. WP:AGF can only be stretched so far. Ask yourself, "Do I honestly believe that the tags improved Wikipedia?" Someone (or several someones) put a lot of work into tagging this article to death; is it unfair to suggest spending a fraction of that time making it useful? I have zero subject-matter expertise so I can't really do that myself. I came here out of curiosity, the same as I reach most articles; I leave not informed but simply disappointed. 159.53.110.143 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC) (Kevin posting without login).

Replace "tensation"

I can find no definition of the word "tensation." So either it is not a word, or so obscure a word as to be unhelpful to the reader. TerrificBowler (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I just came to post the same thing. Does anyone know the meaning? Chconnor (talk)

Pedant's Corner

Shouldn't there be a comma after 'Hail'? Markcymru (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Or after "fellow" And shouldn't it be "hale"?

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/hale-fellow-well-met-1.39042 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)