Aaaarrggh! How does one wikify a poem?
Below is a discussion that was posted on my talk page:
Philip, would you be kind enough to change the Article Heading for "Trade winds" to "Trade Winds" please? AlanE 22:05, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
- The existing title conforms to the Manual of Style, so I won't change it as you request. However, I would be happy to change it to Trade wind, as singular titles are the norm, although the Manual of Style doesnt' (yet) require that. Philip J. Rayment 22:51, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
- Fair enough...I'll change the links - those I can remember. I will also do a redirect from "Trade Winds" because of the poem/song. Thanks.AlanE 23:00, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
- Philip, I have to disagree with the singular. My Random House Dict. has both, my Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea has them indexed under plural as do two books on the Earth's climate, my 1959 Chambers Encyclopedia, John Masefield, my battered old 4th and 5th year high school geography text books (1958 would you believe!) and the official Oz Met. Bureau "Australian Weather Book". A very quick rummage inside some of my books on discovery and maritime history that don't have the term indexed have "they picked up the trades" and phrases like that. In fact I can't find a singular at all amongst my books. I see wp has it listed as "trade wind" but reverts to the plural immediately. Still, if all the various versions ("trade wind" "Trade wind", "trade winds", "tradewinds", "trades" etc. are directed to the same place, then fair enough. Oh...and I found a CP article "Tradewinds"...can that be deleted or redirected or whatever? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlanE (talk)
- I assumed when I suggested it that the singular would be the normal use unless talking about more than one. For example, the Roaring Forties would be one trade wind. You've made me wonder, though, if even "one" such wind would be referred to as trade winds. Nevertheless, as you point out, the singular is used, even if it is more common to talk about more than one. Britannica also uses the singular, as does my World Book encyclopedia. So even with further consideration, I still think that naming the article in the singular is more appropriate, although I'm open to being convinced otherwise. I'd suggest that tradewinds be turned into a redirect to trade wind, and you can do that just as easily as I can. Philip J. Rayment 05:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Philip, I was unable to reply to your last comments as I was locked out; then did family things over the weekend…… “Trade winds” is a usage thing. The odd general reference book has it as singular, but all the specialist books (that I can find here) have it as a plural either as an idex item, or in context. These are books on climate/weather including our own Met. Bureau’s, and books on maritime subjects…exploration, shipping, the “age of sail”, biographies of nautical figures and the like. Masefield (whose poem I threw in in a fit of romantic fancy) spent time as a merchant seaman and he refers to “them”, not “it” in a piece about a specific harbour on a specific island. “Trade wind” might be an American thing, I don’t know, and if you want it that I way, there’s nothing I can do about it; I have been in love with that sail-driven era since I was a boy and the sound of the singular is unfamiliar to me. And you never see or hear it shortened to anything but trades.(I was thinking of emailing this, but for some reason AlanE has never been able to activate one – see the discussion last year on my talk page. However an email address is on my user page…) AlanE 15:41, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Based on AlanE's last post there, I'm prepared to go along with reverting this to Trade winds, but felt that this discussion should be on this page in case anyone else wishes to comment before I do so.
Philip J. Rayment 02:34, 5 October 2008 (EDT)