Talk:Eaves

This article was nominated for merging with Soffit on February 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Eave(s)?

Shouldn't this article be called Eave instead of Eaves? I don't see any reason not to follow the rule singular rule. Retodon8 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. 'Eaves' is most used. The sometimes used singular 'eave' is a backward-reasoned word (sorry I can't think what the correct expression is). As 'eaves' is originally from the Old English efes which was singular. In fact someone ought to update the page to remove the eave reference in the first line. Any objections? 1bj05hua (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the singular being a back-formation, the singular is now fully accepted and very commonly used. Since the singular is preferred for Wikipedia article titles in almost all circumstances, that is what should prevail in this case. Neelix (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Eave" may be used occasionally, but it is not the usual term: in fact most examples I can find are links to this article itself, or derivatives. "Eaves" is a singular term that happens to end in "s" and it is by far the more common usage: there are many other examples, such as series, species, physics, measles, news etc. "Eaves" is not a plural: it's derived from Old English efes (in Old English an "s" ending was used in all sorts of circumstances, and there were other plural endings); Wikipedia does not insist on regular singular formations when an irregular one is the usual term. Even if "eaves" was a plural it would be a plurale tantum, a word with no singular: other examples include trousers, binoculars, scissors, cattle etc. Either way the usual term is "eaves" and that should be the name of the article. I've started a proposal below. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it in the lede to eaves but noted that the Merriam-Webster website lists it as eave, calling into question the 2010 move. I don't have access to OED to verify that their usage has not changed between 2009 and 2014. Is it possible that this is a difference between British and American usage? Peter Chastain ^{[habla, por favor]} 18:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved Kotniski (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eave → Eaves — "Eaves" is the usual name, and is a singular word ending in "s" (like "news", "series" etc). "Eave" is only an occasionally used back-formation. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Logical reasoning. Powers ^T 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge with Chhajja

There is a proposal to merge Chhajja into Eaves.

Support. There are many local cultural eaves designs and traditions. Merge may attract other local variants and makes two small, underdeveloped articles into something more useful and likely to attract development. E x nihil ^(talk) 17:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Against. I've been working on creating a more extensive article for chhajja with extensive research. There is much to be told about the history and usage of this architectural element and I believe it should be kept seperate to eaves. Theodorejordan10 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not a good idea. These are not really the eaves as such, but the supporting brackets. It should be merged with Modillion if anywhere. Time to close this I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]