Talk:AA cup

RFD discussion: September 2013–May 2014
doesn't seem particularly idiomatic to me -- Liliana • 16:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Both AA and cup have brassiere-related definitions. Seems SOP. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup
I'm on the fence about these entries, particularly because I note that this one has a "by synecdoche: a woman whose breasts fit this size of bra" sense. I'm adding it to the RFD because I don't think it would make sense to delete one and not the other. The letters are common on their own, so there is an argument to be made that the combinations ("AA cup", "A cup") aren't idiomatic. [[A cup]] currently contains more info than [[A]], but it would be easy to move the info. As for the synecdoche sense: it seems possible to use synecdoche to speak of the wearers of most any item of clothing, with the intelligibility of the synecdoche dependent on the context and the commonness of the clothing. (Yoga pants and skinny jeans might understand things that pantsuits don't. G cups have to deal with things that suits don't. Of those, we only have an entry on the one that is by far the most common, suits.) - -sche (discuss) 03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point: A and cup allow for a lot of senses for "A cup", yet A cup dwarfs those senses. --80.114.178.7 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 *  Rephrase or delete If the definition were, "a woman with teeny-tiny breasts", then we might have a shot.  But the present definition adds nothing that isn't either overly encyclopedic or blatantly obvious from the bra-related definition of cup  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your vote. If you think the definition should be rephrased — and you're even offering a rephrased version — then you should just edit the entry accordingly, and then vote "keep". No? —Ruakh TALK 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Since my rephrase involves saying the same thing with completely different words, deleting the existing entry and starting from stratch would provide the same effect. FWIW, I've added the small-boob definition alongside the other one, which we can still discuss.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And since the rephrase is now in the entry as a separate def, just delete Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 05:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know that the yoga-pants analogy works ("I'm an A cup" is fine, *"I'm a yoga pant" is not), but this is part of a much broader group of size related terms ("I'm a size 6" is fine). Even if it's specifically worth documenting this use of "___ cup", I think the best place to do that might be [[cup]]. —Ruakh TALK 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And size for the size 6, 2, 10 definition Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to me the general sentiment above is that entries like A cup, *size 6, etc should not exist with the definition "a person who wears a _ cup / a size _", whilst the "a certain size" sense seems likely to pass either as "kept" or as "no consensus" . Regarding the question of expanding cup to account for uses like "I'm an A cup": Ruakh observes that "this is part of a much broader group of size related terms", and it's actually even broader than just size-related terms. A psychologist might refer to a person by saying "she's a real code 67" or "oh, joy, another code 329", referring to a diagnostic or billing code for e.g. . The phenomenon of "[A] is [B]" meaning "[A] has or uses [B]" is so broad that we should perhaps either document it at be (the usex "I am 75 kilograms" which already exists there seems to contain a related, though not identical, phenomenon), or else consider it a basic element of grammar that isn't really something we have the capacity to document in a sensible way (since I'm not convinced that having separate "a size" and "a person who wears this size" senses in every attested pant/shirt/bra/shoe size is sensible). - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC) clarification added: 16:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Metonymy can lead to entry-worthy meanings, but this pattern doesn't seem to me to make for good entries.
 * Should we track our RfD discussions of metonymy to direct users to it and to track our thoughts on the subject?
 * An Appendix on metonymy might be a good place to which to redirect specific entries like this one if we choose to create one, possibly starting with Metonymy. DCDuring TALK 12:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Senses deleted. bd2412 T 02:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)