Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (plurals)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

SOME article titles should be plural

... even when the noun is not ALWAYS plural. E.g. Beatles, Korean honorifics or (a really obvious case, except to non-mathematicians) Hermite polynomials. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#SOME_article_titles_should_be_plural. Michael Hardy 18:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"Barbarian" tribes...

What's the rationalisation behind "Anglo-Saxons", "Huns", "Vandals" "Goths" (that one should be "Goth", and the current "Goth" should be moved), "Eurasian Avars", etc.? Surely these should all be moved? elvenscout742 13:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Started a relevant RfC elsewhere

I didn't know this page existed until just now; if I'd known earlier, I would've posted this (Talk:Kilometres per hour#RfC: Should titles of article on units of the form "X per Y" be singular or plural?) here instead.

In a nutshell, I was wondering what the rule should be for articles such as metre per second and kilometres per hour. However, I'm pretty sure that this page implies that the "use singular" convention should apply. Oli Filth(talk) 01:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning behind using singular instead of plural?

Reading the article I am unable to find the reasoning behind this policy. Why should we use plural instead of singular? --Tunheim 07:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We should use singular instead of plural, to allow easier linking by writers. People make links to an article far more often than they create the title of an article. So we want to make the common case (making links) easy.

(So why do we make it easier on writers? For the same reason we at Wikipedia do lots of other things to make it easier on writers.)

So which title should we pick, to make it as easy as possible on all the writers who want to link to the article?

  • When I find the word "tigers", and want to make it link to the article about tigers: if the title is "tigers", I can write [[tigers]]; if the title is "tiger", I must use the slightly awkward [[tiger]]s.
  • When I find the word "tiger", and want to make it link to the article about tigers: if the title is "tiger", I can write [[tiger]]; if the title is "tigers", I must use the annoyingly error-prone and far more awkward [[tigers|tiger]].

Even if I link 10 "tigers" for each time I link "tiger" to that article, overall it is still less error-prone and awkward if the title of the article is singular.

Please help improve the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) so the reasoning is more clear. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Award

We have inconsistent practice on the treatment of Awards. For many of them (including many notable) the primary article is at the singular, which seems to confrom to this guideline; while for a large number the primary article is under the plural (and in almost all cases there are redirects from the non-primary to the singular. Here are some examples:

Primary at singular:

Primary at plural:

Does anyone see any issue with moving the plurals to their singulars, so we have consistency? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing none, I am going to proceed with the moves. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The above 3 are complete; I will keep on the lookout for more and make any additional needed changes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Pump

Hi. Here's a link to a discussion I began at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Redirecting plurals. The issue is basically what to do when the plural form is a proper noun in a way that the singular is not. An example of currently inconsistent use is: Freaks/freak, but Slackers/Slackers (film). Both are films with sole claim to their names (nothing else is called "Slackers" or "Freaks"), except that each has for its name the plural of a common noun. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects - Plural forms

"If you use a singular title, then in many cases the plural can be constructed just by adding an 's' on the end: eg crayon->crayons. However, for some cases this is not possible: eg company -> companies. Therefore, consider creating a redirect from the plural to the singular in cases like companies. These redirects should always be tagged with the {{R from plural}} template."

I just want to check that the only time the {{R from plural}} template should be used is when the plural involves a spelling that is more than just adding an 's'. I only ask because I've seen it used on plurals which are just an added 's'. Dyaimz (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Section title

We need a guideline for a section title. QuackGuru (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the titles of sections should be done in the context of the article, and this policy should not attempt to apply to section naming conventions. There may be some sections where the title should be the plural, there may be other sections where the title should be singular. This policy seems to me to come about due to the linking capabilities of the wikipedia software, not what is best grammatically or encyclopedic. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 21:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
We still need a guideline on this. QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we do need a guideline, but edit warring is not a acceptable way to insert one. Further, we don't know what the community's opinion is on such a guideline (i.e. Is plurality okay to use for section titles?). You may want to start an RfC to start gathering an idea of what, if anything, should be done here. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

States

Uncontroversial addition, reflecting current WP usage: "Articles on groups of states, such as States of Austria, States of Nigeria, States of Mexico, States of Venezuela." TopoChecker (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Enhanced interrogation techniques

The big elephant in the room here is that technique is plural. The singular form is rarely used however. Marcus Qwertyus 08:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Video game genres

There is a significant debate at Talk:Video game genres#Requested move on how this guideline affects a proposed move to Video game genre. Your comments would be welcome there. Powers T 15:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Standard or Standards ?

Interprovincial Standards is a new article that was just created. Is there a codification on the plural use with the word yet? It may need someone with letters after their name to advise. I wouldn't like to just go by how other standards are titled in wikipedia because they could be wrong. ISO Standard or ISO Standards type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC) --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Potato chips and French fries

Right now we have Potato chip, but French fries. Which one is correct? Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything in policy on it? I don't think it is worth a long debate. I would say plural for both since they are never sold solo. I refuse to put an official consensus vote either way. Searches of every form seem to get to the correct articles. Is there any mention on the talk pages?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Plurals for names of peoples

Though not mentioned in the guideline currently, articles on peoples (nationalities, ethnic groups, &c.) are almost always titled in the plural (e.g., Anglo-Saxons, Ukrainians) or with an adjective plus the plural "people" (Manchu people, Fur people). This also holds true generally for ethnoreligious groups (Jews, Maronites) but less so for religious adherents (Mormons, Vaikhanasas but Sikh, Christian, Hindu, Muslim). Should a line be added to this page specifying plurals for peoples as it does for language groups and others? There was some discussion of this previously above and possibly in the archives of WT:AT. There is a current move request at Talk:Samaritan related to this as well. —  AjaxSmack  02:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to spell this out. Just follow WP:COMMONNAME and use whatever plural usage is most commonly used by reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting overriding WP:COMMONNAME but that guideline is not very relevant to issues like singular/plural, parts of speech, and others noted at WP:TITLEFORMAT (e.g. swim may be more common than swimming, UK than United Kingdom). —  AjaxSmack  17:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Forget it all

This article having to do with plural nouns is simply a set of opinions, some good, from fellow Wikipedians, and should be taken a that and no more. Not that some of the content is without merit. My suggestion is that we should respect the originator of any article and redirect only if the title seems to contradict the sense of the article as in say Sparrow when the article isn't about what a sparrow is but is about the entire group of birds known as Sparrows. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hilarity

This essay informs us that we should not use the plural form, and I was just directed here by a user indicating that the plural form should not be used in section titles. See [1]. Yet on this page every section title is in the plural form, was this done on purpose? Back to my real question though, does this naming convention apply only to page titles or to section titles as well? TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that someone else find it odd that the title of this very guideline is in itself a plural and thus perpetrates the very peccadillo against which it warns. In fact, it dips twice into plurality (if you count the parethetical portion). Speaking of which, should we count the parenthetical portion when considering plurality in titles? I wonder. :-)
To be helpful, even in the slightest, I would say that this guideline did not include section titles until today when it was added to this guideline - a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow - without the benefit of discussion with the community. That doesn't seem right to me. It should be discussed because the consequences of this addition will have a wide effect all across Wikipedia. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 02:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It was added in by a user who was engaged in a mini edit war of trying to apply this policy to subsection titles. See the links I pointed to. I am against the changes that have been made to this page today by quackguru [2]. What was done is not the right way to go about winning an edit war. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I've dealt with QuackGuru on many occassion and on many occassions he feels totally comfortable with pushing WP:3RR to its limits. I wouldn't feel right about reverting here because of my previous dealings with this editor. That said, per WP:BRD, one revert of his addition should have been enough - especially on a Wikipedia guideline page. Something is to be said about an editor who edit wars an article based on a guideline that doesn't exist and then in turn edit wars a guildine in an attempt to create justification for his article edit war. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 03:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Levine2112, that was brilliantly put. Seriously. That sums it up. Brangifer (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I came to make the same point. Shouldn't we follow our own convention?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Articles on people groups" bullet a little problematic

I think this bullet is a little sub-optimal. It's talking about exceptions to the singularity rule and reads "Articles on people groups. Americans, Canadians, and French people are all acceptable titles; in contrast, some peoples have singular names, like the Bantu."

But first of all, Bantu is a disambiguation page that ends up sending you to... not "Bantu people" but Bantu peoples (!). Second of all, even if Bantu is a singular group of people, I can't see how "French people" is a plural noun while "Bantu" (people) is not. I feel like it should say "some people have singular names like the Bantu or French." Thoughts? AgnosticAphid talk 16:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully logical point to be included...

I would suggest that for any article (like Windows or spoons) where we don't redirect the reader to the singular noun or the disambiguation page (for whatever reason), we as a matter of policy/guideline always include a direct link to the singular noun's article in a hatnote. See this diff for a logical application. Sound legit? Red Slash 04:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I had that in the latest version above. Dohn joe (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. Steel1943 (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Separate primary topics

User:Red Slash made this edit to the page, regarding singular versus plural usage. I reverted to allow discussion here on the talkpage first. It seems a little overlapped with the discussion just above, but it is worth discussing how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to plural forms. It may be as simple as saying that there is no difference: as Red Slash put it,

  • "The pluralized form of the regular form (...) should be treated like any other claimant to primary topic."

To that I might add,

  • "In the great majority of cases, a plural will redirect to the corresponding singular (i.e., Airplanes redirects to Airplane). Occasionally, a plural form will establish a separate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC from the corresponding singular form (i.e., Bookends does not redirect to Bookend)."

Red Slash then also stated,

  • "Plural versions are treated as somewhat less influential in primary topic discussions than the singular form would be."

Not sure if I agree with that, or how to put it. Thoughts? How does this coordinate with the above discussion? Dohn joe (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: we also may want to add a sentence about the case where a word looks like a plural, but is in fact unrelated to the singular (i.e., Walls, which can mean the plural of wall, but can also be an unrelated surname or placename). In that case, the plural-looking word may (or may not) qualify as a primarytopic that overrides the actual plural. Dohn joe (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Do any of you think I'm really smart? Maybe, but I sure didn't show it here! Whoops, somehow I didn't realize y'all were discussing this page at all and I just boldly made an edit. Anyway, in point of fact, just like any WP:PTM, plural forms are not treated as being quite as important as their respective singular nouns. Apple beats the snot out of Apple (company), but I am certain that if the technology company changed its name to Apples, we would give the company primary topic there. It's similar to Abraham Lincoln not being primary topic at Lincoln. So I think that we definitely need to address the fact that when we compare window to Windows, it is not fair (for lack of a better term) to actually compare 100% of window's significance with that of Windows. No one will look for Microsoft Windows at "window"; only some (how many? who knows?) would look for a window at windows. Red Slash 06:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed statements/issues

So here's the list of statements/issues that I think people would like to see addressed in a "Separate primary topic" section. Feel free to add:

  1. The normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular. (Chairs goes to Chair).
  2. Sometimes, a plural form will establish a separate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (Windows does not go to Window).
    • In making that determination:
      • a plural form is treated like any other topic.
      • the relationship between a singular and its plural is important, but not the only consideration. Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form, the intentional use of a plural form by a reader or editor can be evidence that a separate primary topic exists at the plural form.
      • encyclopedic uses are given more weight than dictionary uses (per WP:NOTADICTIONARY) (e.g., if there is not an article at the singular form, it is more likely that a plural form can establish a separate primary topic).
    • Just as with any other title, a plural base title can direct to an article (Bookends), or to a dab page (Walls, although that page is under discussion, so another example may be needed).
    • If a plural form does lead somewhere besides the singular, add a hatnote from the plural page to the singular form.
  3. Sometimes, what appears to be a plural form may also be a separate word, which can influence the primary topic decision. (Walls can be the plural of "wall", but can also be a separate placename or surname.)
  4. Sometimes, even when a singular might be ambiguous and lead to a dab page, a plural might be unambiguous and lead to a particular singular use (Oranges leads to Orange (fruit), not Orange the dab page).
  5. Using a plural as a separate primary topic should neither be encouraged nor discouraged. This page only describes the conditions where it is appropriate to do so.

Okay - feedback? Dohn joe (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I like that a lot. It all makes sense to me. It's lengthy, but this page is short and the disagreements we've been having in requested moves show that this is needed. I'm sure some refining could be done... anyone? Red Slash 20:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

When singular and plural diverge

I'd like to add some language to the guideline to address the issue where a plural form of a word has an independent meaning from the singular. I see that this was mentioned some time ago with regard to Data versus Datum. It also applies, however, to items that are completely unrelated: Window versus Windows; Friend versus Friends; Bookend versus Bookends. We could add a new bullet to "Cases where the title only exists in the plural", as

  • Articles on topics that use the plural form of a word, unrelated to the singular form of the word, as in Windows or Bookends.

We could also change the Redirect section to something like "A redirect from the plural to the singular is strongly advised whenever possible, unless a separate article exists at the plural form."

Any thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - I'd also like to add some language to note how extremely unusual this is and make clear that only mega-exceptions like windows and friends do it, and only after consensus on the article talk page to depart from normal en.wp practice such as seen in guidelines, addresses, forms, apples, oranges, things, objects, ideas, pages, letters,.... or any of the 100,000s of plural redirects where we don't do this. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    I would agree to some version of "unusual", but it's not limited to "mega-exceptions". It's a simple WP:PRIMARYTOPIC question, whether a reader looking for a particular plural form is likelier to be searching for the underlying singular item, or for a different topic that happens to share the plural form. See peeps, turnstiles, lifeforms, parachutes, celebrations, snickers, whoppers, planters, bugles, ruffles, etc. for examples of other plural forms that lead to independent articles. Some of these are "mega-exceptions", some are relatively more obscure (and some are under discussion elsewhere), but they still illuminate the principle. How about the following, in the Redirect section:
    • "A redirect from the plural to the singular (e.g., chairs to chair) is strongly advised whenever possible. Rarely, a separate article exists at the plural form, making such a redirect impossible (e.g., Friends or Whoppers). When this happens, include a hatnote at the top of such an article."
    Sound good? Dohn joe (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
"Rarely, a separate article exists at the plural form" is too open, because it may well be a non-notable/trivial media product created in a redirect space. "In a few exceptional cases a highly notable derived subject has replaced the basic plural meaning as primary topic, for example Windows and Friends." In my view if there hasn't been Talk page consensus to supplant the basic topic we shouldn't be encouraging editors to do so. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
If something is non-notable or trivial, it won't be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the first place. But "highly notable derived subject" sets the bar too high - this is really just another particular application of regular PRIMARYTOPIC considerations. There's no need to require prior talkpage consensus anymore than there is for any other topic, singular or plural. Also, I still think that "rarely" is better reflective of WP reality than "a few exceptional cases". Can you live with the proposed language? Dohn joe (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
How many plurals as a percentage do not redirect to the singular or a dab? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Approximately the percentage of plurals that are a separate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I would imagine.... Dohn joe (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I will randomly pick 10 words as I see them out in room/out of the window.
keyboard orange cup spoon lamppost tree car bicycle cloud bird
Add plurals
keyboards oranges cups spoons lampposts trees cars bicycles clouds birds In ictu oculi (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Keyboard instrument same same spoons (game) redlink same same same same same
Okay that's 2 out of 10, keyboards I can understand, spoons I can't. But clearly "Approximately the percentage of plurals that are a separate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I would imagine." is very wide of the mark. Perhaps we need a more accurate assessment. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Spoons makes sense - see also hearts and spades. I stand by my assessment - I think that WP editors do a pretty good job of sussing out a PRIMARYTOPIC, even without our help. Dohn joe (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hearts and Spades are international, not comparable with an obscure (local?) game like spoons. I also think that most WP editors do a pretty good job of assessing when there is no PRIMARYTOPIC, which is the default. I would like a tighter version of your wording. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know - I think my language is actually pretty fairly worded. It clearly indicates that the plural-to-singular redirect is "strongly advised whenever possible", and then says that exceptions to that are rare. Isn't that reflective of reality? Dohn joe (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is "unless a separate article exists at the plural form." - which could be read as an invitation to insert trivial media products into plural-singular redirects. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the latest proposal does not include that language. Here it is again:
  • "A redirect from the plural to the singular (e.g., chairs to chair) is strongly advised whenever possible. Rarely, a separate article exists at the plural form, making such a redirect impossible (e.g., Friends or Whoppers). When this happens, include a hatnote at the top of such an article."
That seems a fair representation of WP reality - I don't think it encourages or discourages any particular behavior. Dohn joe (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I would also have some language addressing topics that are ambiguous in the singular, but not in the plural. Android is ambiguous but Androids really isn't, since most of the terms on the Android page can only be referred to in the singular. The plural form should go to the primary plurable topic. bd2412 T 21:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I would rather show the 3 options with a neutral example Chairs being:
(1) Chairs redirect to chair, the preferred method
(2) Chairs redirect to chair (disambiguation), the second choice
(3) Chairs Chairs (album) redirects to Chairs, to be avoided
There is in some cases an advantage in a plural going to a dab, in that it triggers the dabbot notification. All the same I tend to agree with BD2412 that going to the singular is the most sensible. Going to a trivial and WP:RECENT plural topic as parachutes is something that shouldn't be encouraged. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if we need to codify this into the actual guideline, but sometimes the plural is more or less unambiguous even if the singular is ambiguous. At Orange, you have two big important topics and a whole lot of tiny topics, but only the fruit is realistically pluralizable. As you'd expect, then, oranges redirects to orange (fruit). Should we make that option explicitly available in the guideline? Red Slash 05:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
And in an completely irrelevant but heartfelt note, I can personally attest that Americans everywhere are familiar with the game Spoons. I don't know how many would expect to find the game rather than the silverware upon searching for "spoons", but how dare you insinuate that it's obscure! smile Red Slash 05:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The test there should quite clearly be, if the common noun topic were at the plural title, what would be the primary topic of that title? A similar argument is going on right now with respect to an RfD I initiated over androids. bd2412 T 21:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as per User:BD2412, and as shown at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 26 Wishes and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 26 Doors and Talk:Puffs (facial tissue). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
BD2412, no, I can't say our current practice agrees with that. If we put article topics at their plural names, sorry, there's no way that the TV show is beating out the base concept of a friend for primary topic at friends. Not a chance. Should we use what you suggested as part of our criteria? Maybe, but clearly in common practice today, we don't. Red Slash 07:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Since our decision to have titles for common nouns at the singular is more or less arbitrary, I think that we should treat the plural as if it were the title where the singular would sit. In that case, I agree that friends would redirect to friend. bd2412 T 15:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's arbitrary at all. If you look at other reference works that treat individual topics - dictionaries, other encyclopedias, etc. - it's a very common convention. People are used to looking for things in the singular. And if you look at actual WP usage, it backs that up. It's hard to find many great examples, because most of the time, the singular is the article title, and so obviously it will outdraw the plural redirect.

But when both the singular and plural are redirects, we can get a better sense of usage. And singular redirects outdraw plural redirects by a wide margin. What does this mean for us? That it's not a straight primarytopic correlation between singular and plural. If the usual ratio of singular to plural is roughly 5:1, then we can look at pageview stats for a plural form, and compare it to a baseline. If a particular plural form is getting, say, equal views to a singular form, then that suggests that it is drawing about five times more traffic than a typical plural, and that extra traffic is likely because the plural form is being sought as an independent primarytopic. That's the kind of comparison we should be looking for.

For the example we've been using, it's incredibly clear. Friend has gotten 9,744 views in the last 90 days. Friends has gotten 754,155 views and is the 794th most popular page on WP. Of course, not all cases will be so clear, but I think that it's a useful way to approach the question. Dohn joe (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, friend is not an example at all. We have no article at that title; rather, we have a redirect to Friendship. Of course, the plural form, Friendships, also redirects to Friendship. bd2412 T 20:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, friendship has 145,000 views over the past 90 days, which is still less than the TV show, but close enough we would definitely make an Apple-esque exception. Anyway, I'd agree it's mostly arbitrary (although it is a little more concise smile and perhaps more what people would expect to find). Have you seen the first version of this guideline? Do you want to know what the rationale was, originally? So that it would be easier to link to the articles. Seriously. (I don't know if redirects had been invented yet.) At this point, we keep the rule because of consistency, but yeah, I'd say it's mostly arbitrary that we put the guideline in in the first place. All this to the side; currently, it's really cool to be able to use the plural to naturally disambiguate stuff, like Oranges and Windows and all that jazz, and it would stink to lose that. (Point of fact, I'd almost--almost--want an RM on the fruit to move it to Oranges, which would be inconsistent but more concise and natural.) Red Slash 08:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I added it

...basically as per Dohn joe. Does it accurately reflect consensus here? Red Slash 23:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

People groups where "[adjective] people" is rare but "[name of group]" is ambiguous

"Ainu people" are in my experience more commonly referred to in English as "Ainu" (singular and plural same, occasionally also "Ainus"). Is adding a kind of rare/awkward"people" solely for disambigation common? Or is the title deliberately trying to fit into the exception here by going out of its way to be "plural, not singular"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 I would say that, as you may agree, WP:UCRN takes presidents. However I suspect that problems may arise relating to English grammar if the subject is commonly referred to as "The Ainu" which could potentially envisage as an acceptable title. Another possibility, if supported, might be Ainu people Ainu (ethnic group) and perhaps Äynu people → Äynu (ethnic group). GregKaye 09:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed pipelining on Cars and Bookends examples

I've removed the pipelining, and updated for accuracy and transparency, the Cars and Bookend examples, they weren't clear, or reflecting actual article titling. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the Bookends example with Snickers, and removed the inaccurate statement that Suns redirects anywhere. The whole point of those examples is to use plurals that are base titles. Now that Bookends no longer fits that category, we needed a new one. Dohn joe (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I added that back as a further example of a plural redirecting to a singular. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(plurals)/Archive_2&oldid=1090633685"