Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (plurals)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Firework?

"Articles on items such as scissors or fireworks are not located at awkward, unnatural titles like scissor or firework."

I don't believe that firework should be used here, as it is not really in the same category as Scissors. The reason we use the plural of firework in that article is down to the merger between fireworks display, Fireworks and Firework. I'll assert that "Firework" (singular) is NOT an 'unnatural title', or at least it would't be if the article in question was something like "Firework (device)" or "Firework (explosive)". In fact, the encyclopedia britannica has just such an article, Firework(explosive) . I guess my point is that "Firework" is a bad example here, as the choice of title in that case is down to the article content more being about fireworks displays rather than, for example, exclusively about the firework device and its history. I would support using handcuff and handcuffs as en example in its place instead, as this is a more clearcut example as well as perhaps using "Firework" as a separate example where if the article content is not exclusively about the device, but rather the device being used in the plural.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  07:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as a necessary example, but a title firework would be considered by many to be unnatural. Indeed, I don't know how many people in practice even consider fireworks as a countable noun. But if you consider it better to remove that example, please, go right ahead! Red Slash 13:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

When speaking about 'unnatural titles', which is a pretty vague term, I think it needs to be pretty clear cut that it is indeed an unnatural title. As the Encyclopaedia britannica's article on the topic is actually in the singular, I think that pretty much disqualifies it from this list. I only care because this sort of thing ends up getting used in RM discussions to justify moves, so it is important to make sure that it is clear.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  14:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Another example is the use of the word in the Katy Perry song, where it is used exclusively in the singular. I don't think that a term is 'unnatural' if it is merely used most commonly in the plural, and only rarely in the singular, as in the case of 'firework'.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that it makes for a good example. If “firework” were perfectly natural and common, why is the Wikipedia article titled Fireworks and not Firework? Let me tell you: It is because “firework” is very uncommon. Otherwise, the article would be titled Firework.
―PapíDimmi (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, it was originally named firework I believe, but changed when it was merged with 'Fireworks Display'. The compromise was that the title ended up at 'fireworks' as this title reasonably covers both subjects. The article is not just a technical article about the design and operating principles of various of how a firework works, rather it is also about fireworks displays, regulations on fireworks, etc. and the current title was arrived at through compromise by editors. None of this, in my view implies that 'firework' would be an unnatural title. Rather 'fireworks' could be justified based mainly on the fact that it is almost always used in multiples "setting off some fireworks", even though you 'light a firework". I've seen this justification used before, for example, in an RM at Roller Skates it was argued that they are always used in the plural, but at Ice skate it was argued that it should be singular anyway due to articles like Shoe and Snowshoe. Basically this guideline is very hard to use, and using an ambiguously 'unnatural' example like 'firework' just helps to add more ambiguity as to where this argument should be applied.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Trouser would be a better example (although it might be nice to find something that is not typically a pair, as with scissors). How about Datum? —BarrelProof (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Or Linguistic? (I'm not too fond of handcuff.) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Move proposal re plurals

Here is a move proposal to apply this MOS, specifically the "Articles on classes of specific things" exception. (I wrote the proposal). As it is three weeks old now, and not showing much activity any more, I want to ask here for someone to conclude and close it. Preferably done by someone who is very familiar this MOS(-detail). -DePiep (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)