In the Gaff Rig Handbook, it's spelled parrel, as well as in a number of other sources (such as retailers like Duckworks) I've found. A Google search of "parrell beads" vs. "parrel beads" turns up 4410 vs. 688 hits respectively, so "parrell" is more common. A dictionary search gives parrel or parral, derived from the Middle English word for apparel. So do we move the article to the more correct "parrel beads" and leave "parrell beads" a redirect? Or make "parrel beads" (and the alternate spelling "parral beads") a redirect? scot 14:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Conventionally, refer to the alternate spellings within the article, then create redirects from the uncommon to the common. If I read your stats right the article stays where it is because that is the most common. I suspect it's one of those words that was used in speech and almost never written down. After all, it is not exactly medieval illuminated text stuff :) Citing the alternate spellings would square the circle Fiddle Faddle 16:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree, but I've done some looking that makes me pause. First, since "parrel" is in the dictionary whereas "parrell" is not, that provides support for the less common spelling being correct--ff course, dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, so it could be argued that the dictionary is wrong in this case. However, a search of books.google.com finds NO reference to "parrell beads" vs. 17 hits for "parrel beads". This may just mean that publishers defer to the dictionary spelling, while most everyone else (forum posts, how-to pages on the web, this article, etc.) doesn't; being moderately obscure technical jargon, it's not a word you find in most dictionaries.
I'm going to go ahead and note all the spellings in the article, but I need to find some way of referencing the common "parrell" spelling without wandering into the realm of original research. scot 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm easy with any outcome, including moving the article to the (probable) more authoritative spelling that you've researched. Sufficient reference for the "ll" spelling would be a reasonably authoritative article elsewhere that uses that spelling. If you end up moving the article don't forget the template needs to bypass the redirect also. Obviously the "official" spelling and the article name should be congruent at the end of this. Fiddle Faddle 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's moved, and I think all the instances of "parrell beads", both links and text references, are fixed. scot 17:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)