Talk:person of size

RFD discussion: July 2017–February 2018
Nominating this entry since and  have been determined in earlier discussions to be sum-of-parts. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Delete. DCDuring (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, as size here refers euphemistically to overweight, not just size in general, which we do not have at , so it's not SOP. It doesn't mean a tall person, or a large bodied person, it means an overweight or obese person. It's modelled after . Leasnam (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The purported connection with is their shared use of a standard English construction.
 * I doubt that "purported" is at all an accurate assessment of the the Washington Post's article regarding the term's origin. Leasnam (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I repeat the comment I made above at :
 * I'm sure I hope you agree that wall of great size is SoP. Isn't woman of great size SoP? I would hope you would agree that wall of size is SoP. I don't think woman of size departs from this normal construction of meaning for these of NPs. DCDuring (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree where is concerned. It is not a woman of (great) size or necessarily any size, which is precisely why large bodied, stocky (but not fat) women are never referred to as a "". No one uses the term that way. "Woman of size" is a nice PC way of saying "plus-sized woman" (i.e. "fat woman"), a woman with more to love ;) She doesn't even have to be large, just have a little excess fat (you can be petite and "curvy" and be a woman of size, or a "plus size" woman, and be of normal size). As I pointed out in ES about the origin of, it is a collocation with its originator phrase  which served as the pattern for why the phrase woman of size was created in the first place. It's like ,  for those with dwarfism. They're not strictly just "little + people" (SoP). Same thing here. Leasnam (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , why again is is not SoP ? Maybe the definition of  should be: A non-skinny person. Leasnam (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if you're comparing woman of size to wall of size, then perhaps you're not understanding what woman of size specifically refers to. It's not always a "large woman". It's a woman who has more body fat than popular culture deems desirable. OTOH, would be SoP, because big can mean "fat" in addition to just large size. Leasnam (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I know English expressions reasonably well, but I may be semantically challenged and unaware of it.
 * Wall of size is just about synonymous with wall of great size and woman of size is just about synonymous with woman of great size. No OneLook reference has of size or woman/person/man of size. Perhaps the OED does?
 * I think person of color is inclusion-worthy because color does not mean "dark/brown skin color " AND because the selection of an appropriate name for a member of a group that is sensitive to the names it or its members are called is a matter of GREAT pragmatic concern. (I'm speaking here as a descendant of Huns.)
 * Not every instance of pragmatically/contextually preferred selection among available expressions warrants an entry, still less one that involves only conventional construction of conventional meaning. In contrast plus-size/plus-sized/plus size do involve departure from conventional usage.
 * As to the matter of size only being one specific measure of size in woman of size, what of garden of size? In this case size can (almost???) always only mean "area", not "length", "weight", "height". You certainly wouldn't want to have separate entries for each combination of [Noun] and of size because a particular meaning of size was most common when used with [Noun]. DCDuring (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nowhere at does it refer to overweight. It only refers (among other things) to dimensions. Leasnam (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The definitions at [[importance]] don't show "great import", even though it has that meaning in "matter of importance". I think that many of the nouns that are conceived as having scalar or ordinal values are often used without a modifier to mean that the scalar or rank is high in context. Examples of such nouns that can be used with of to yield the result are many as are examples that do not have the resulting type of meaning. DCDuring (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is "garden of size" or "wall of size" a normal construction where you're from? It seems weird to me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was common, just normal, in the sense of following a fairly standard pattern. One can find numerous instances of "player/lineman/back of size" in sports news. It is parallel to "matter of (some/great) significance/importance/weight" and similar expressions. DCDuring (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have us making entries for, , , what have you...those are clearly SoP. But and  are inclusion-worthy. Like , These are not SoP. I see your concern over the slipperiness of this though--should we create , ,  ? No. JUst like we don't have , , or whatever either. We know where to draw the line. Leasnam (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @DCDuring: interesting, that's completely foreign to me (but then again, I don't read sports news). Where do you live? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't read the sports news either: I searched Google News, suspecting that something could be found. I'm just north of NYC. But I don't think it's regional. DCDuring (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you could take almost any word that could mean a type of individual and add "of size": imagine a dating service for plus-sized people. You could say that you're interested in "dog-lovers of size" or "left-handers of size". If anything's idiomatic, it would be "of size", not person of size, man of size, woman of size, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Chuck, absolutely ! Either something is missing at, or we need to consider creating an idiomatic . Leasnam (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This now makes me think that is just  +, as you can also say: , , , , etc. Leasnam (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to weigh in that my impression is that this really is mainly a matter of of lacking a definition of this kind of thing. Something like denotes that the preceding subject has the quality of the following predicate noun. Hair of gold and days of yore are not made of gold and yore, they're just liken to the implied quality. Seems a standard English construction to me. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I imagine we might redirect this to of size, and create an entry there. Or we might say that we deleted the hyponyms man of size and woman of size, but kept the broadest term, which is person of size.
 * Let me ping people who participated in Talk:woman of size, to see whether they want to post a boldfaced delete or keep or redirect:, , , DCDuring (already posted here), , , , . --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. Delete this, IMO. Regarding the argument that "of size" only refers to someone who is fat but not e.g. stocky, on Google I see many references to Ashley Graham as a "woman of size" (she is a model, with a waist thinner than her bust/hips, i.e. it seems like she is only referred to as "of size" because she is plus size). I see a few references to larger muscular female mixed martial arts fighters the same way. And then also references to obese women. Hence, I am not convinced that "of size" by itself is idiomatic, since it just means "of [large] size" and as DCDuring said at 20:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC), many nouns (e.g. "of height") imply a large rather than a small value. In some respects this reminds me of decades young and years young, which were kept for the IMO wrong reasoning that flipping the of "young" is somehow notable/idiomatic rather than the standard feature that we should know it to be on this minor website that is "five million entries small" (flipping the markedness of "five million entries big"). However, "of size" probably has more of a claim to idiomaticity than "person of size", since as Chuck says, anything can be "of size", and "person of size" seems no more particularly idiomatic than "man of size" and "woman of size" that were deleted. If "of size" is ever created and deemed keepable, then I would support redirecting "person of size", "woman of size" and "man of size" to it. - -sche (discuss) 16:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Chuck Entz that "If anything's idiomatic, it would be "of size" [...]" (this doesn't necessarily mean I think of size is idiomatic; I simply don't know). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 13:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)