Talk:size matters
RFD
[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
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.
Some of parts. Boobie 21:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed.—msh210℠ 22:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe {{rfv}} instead, it is common and I sought of feel it should appear somewhere on here, maybe under both size and matter, but as black links, not blue. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- If the were merely a statement that the size of some part matters, which is how it reads now, it should be deleted. But it seems to me that the entry as it is now is merely a part of some much better entry that would capture more about how this term is used. Some parts of the COCA corpora might be useful. DCDuring TALK 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe {{rfv}} instead, it is common and I sought of feel it should appear somewhere on here, maybe under both size and matter, but as black links, not blue. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. It's idiomatic as far as I'm concerned, since it pulls upon certain cultural knowledge for interpretation. If an article says, "Three-fifths of women (61 percent) say size matters," (pulled from a random b.g.c hit) then can you glean the meaning by looing up the component parts? No. For native English speakers, the implication is (usually) well-known, but for non-native speakers, the question is "size of what"? There is an additional implication that "bigger is better", which isn't the case for a sum of parts, in which case the expression merely means that size is a consideration. That's not the meaning in most cases. Rather, the meaning is that a particular size is more desirable. --EncycloPetey 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, if the definition is changed to what I suspect it should be, then keep.—msh210℠ 23:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Y!suchwas/ISv.hard4me learnin'moreEnglish-o-it's boutPENISsiz[CULTURALcontext]--laugh w/it,buti/my20s thattookme abitfigurin'out[astheact.meanin'lrarelybespelt out,unles havin' closenat-speaker-friends etc>INeficientLEARNIN--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 04:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- So, what should we call this? A proverb? It raises the question in my mind: Do we need a
{{leer}}tag? DCDuring TALK 11:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)- Proverb? I guess, though it's not the sort of thing a second-grade teacher tapes to the wall. Perhaps the overly general "phrase"?—msh210℠ 23:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not all proverbs are for kids. all cats are gray in the dark has a similar R rating. DCDuring TALK 00:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Proverb? I guess, though it's not the sort of thing a second-grade teacher tapes to the wall. Perhaps the overly general "phrase"?—msh210℠ 23:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- So, what should we call this? A proverb? It raises the question in my mind: Do we need a
Kept and sent to WT:RFC#size matters, Mglovesfun (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
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.
Has passed rfd, but needs a much better definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've reworded it a tad, still using 'non-gloss'. — Pingkudimmi 14:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Archived. - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't really see the need for non-gloss, even though the proverb states a subjective thing; many do. Equinox ◑ 07:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)