Wikipedia talk:Plural of antenna

IEEE

You cite as evidence for the acceptability of "antennae" in non-zoological contexts that this form occasionally appears in "IEEE published journals", which may be presumed to enjoy some level of editorial oversight and quality control by the IEEE. However, as near as I can tell, all the examples you cite are actually from IEEE-sponsored conferences, which do vary rather widely in the rigor and depth of peer review. And in any case, it is very rare for conference submissions to undergo any kind of formal proofreading or copy-editing after acceptance, so even incontrovertible spelling and grammar mistakes are not uncommon. Moreover, a quick glance at the author names suggests that none of them are native English speakers, which could be significant.

Also, even UK-based English dictionaries (e.g., Cambridge, Collins, Oxford) tend to prefer "antennas" for the electromagnetic variant, either explicitly or in usage examples. Thus, I strongly doubt that many British speakers would seriously argue that "antennas" is strictly less correct than "antennae", whereas many American ones are emphatic that "radio antennae" is plain wrong. So while I wouldn't dream of replacing "aerial" with "antenna" in, say, an article about a London building, I think that fixing "TV antennae" to "TV antennas" on the other side of the pond is perfectly reasonable, with the usual exceptions (direct quotations and the like).

In a general scientific/engineering article with no particular national ties, I agree that mass-switching a consistent usage of "antennae" to "antennas" is probably inappropriate, absent a clear WP:MOS recommendation to the contrary. On the other hand, per MOS:COMMONALITY, it could be argued that replacing isolated usages of "antennae" with "antennas" is not necessarily wrong, especially if the original author might not even have made a conscious decision about which form to use. (Still, I certainly would respect the preferences of said author, if they demonstrably held a firm opinion on the matter.) 188.177.108.224 (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You are plain wrong on a number of points. The majority of the cites are from peer-reviewed journals, although there are some conferences. Of the three primary cites (chosen for the high notabality of the writer in the field), Fessenden was a Canadian living in the US, Pupin was a naturalized US citizen from childhood, and Lodge was British. No important dictionary proscribes this usage. The full OED online includes cites (for the electrical use) with the antennae spelling. As for your insinuation that it is mostly foreigners getting it wrong, I would first of all remind you that writing in Indian English is a perfectly valid form under WP:ENGVAR, and secondly, draw to your attention these examples of papers where at least the majority of authors have English sounding names [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Basically, if you want to go around enforcing this, go get it put in the MOS first. SpinningSpark 15:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I was evidently too quick about "all" of the (non-century-old) cites being in conferences, but 5 of the 6 definitely are (unless IEEE Xplore is acting up). Also, I didn't say that any dictionary proscribes "antennae"; just that they regard "antennas" as more common. There actually used to be an explicit discussion of this at antenna (radio), where a footnote in the first paragraph of "Terminology" read,

"In the context of electrical engineering and physics, the plural of antenna is antennas, and it has been this way since about 1950 (or earlier), when a cornerstone textbook in this field, Antennas, was published by the physicist and electrical engineer John D. Kraus of The Ohio State University. Besides in the title, Dr. Kraus noted this in a footnote on the first page of his book. Insects may have "antennae", but this form is not used in the context of electronics or physics."

This (and other material) was unceremoniously removed for being too "wordy" in this edit some 6 months ago, but seems particularly relevant here.

Anyway, I have no particular desire to "go around enforcing this", even if it were an explicit MOS guideline; I made a few casual edits, most of which were in articles specifically about US buildings or transmitting facilities. As for the general usage, I didn't realize I was apparently being too WP:BOLD in trying to promote a useful distinction that seemed well supported by both American and British dictionaries, even though counterexamples can clearly be found (by Brits and non-Brits alike). And I certainly don't feel strongly enough about the issue to try to get it codified in the MOS. 188.177.108.224 (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The UK equivalent to the IEEE uses "antennas", not "antennae": [12]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FAF8:8000:905A:7C3E:88B1:4EB2 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A single example proves nothing. There are plently of examples in the IET database of papers using antennae. The issue is not which form they use, bet whether or not they proscribe one form or the other. No amount of examples can resolve that. SpinningSpark 14:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Dan Brown

Is he really the best example that we could find of a contemporary author who has used both forms of the plural for either definition? DoctorTronik (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Why not Brown? He is a bestselling author, reliably published. We can assume that he is an expert at good writing and that his work is heavily reviewed before publication. SpinningSpark 10:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)