Talk:regard

compulsory "as"

Oxford's learner dictionary reads "regard sb/sth (as sth)". How should this information be mentioned? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

in/at regard of

Historically, with regard to and in regard to have varied considerably in form, e.g. in regard of, at regard of. --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–July 2023

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

regard

Rfv-sense "(Reddit, vulgar)". Per WT:DEROGATORY, derogatory terms must be attested. (Tagging user who added it: Zorya's Leshak.) — W.andrea (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed "retard" from the definition. I don't know whether the definition "A very bad stock trader" is considered derogatory for purposes of WT:DEROGATORY.

Is it intended to be something like rhyming slang? If so it would need to be under a separate Etymology section with the retard connection in the etymology. DCDuring (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it is meant to very transparently/ironically evade a rule against using the word retard. - TheDaveRoss 18:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed Monkey's gone to heaven (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)