Talk:acter
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This was deleted per the one-acter RfD. There Wonderfool “suspect[ed] that the term one-acter was coined before acter”, and TheDaveRoss and Binarystep voted to delete and Equinox to keep, respectively, acter. For similar -er terms used in combination, see Category:English terms suffixed with -er (measurement) (e.g., decker, footer, master, valver, volumer). Alternatively, we would have two-acter, three-acter, four-acter, five-acter, six-acter, seven-acter, eight-acter, nine-acter (all sufficiently attested). J3133 (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support undeletion. I created a few similar entries like worlder without knowledge of that RFD, and yes I agree it makes sense to have single entries qualified as "in combination" over loads of (number)-...er terms which are easily comprehensible sums of parts. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support undeletion. Equinox ◑ 15:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Theknightwho (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support It was never officially deleted, merely removed. diff. DonnanZ (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Weird that it was deleted in the first place. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
RFD-restored and changed the etymology to refer to sense 4 of -er as envisaged above. This, that and the other (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)