Talk:Strata

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Strata article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Move to singular title[change source]

I was about to move this article to the singular Stratum, but I see that it's already been moved four times between the plural and singular. This needs to be considered against the relevant naming conventions, WP:PLURAL. It doesn't seem to warrant an exception from the rule. If we're going to ignore English Wikipedia naming conventions then we need to come up with a set of alternative principles to apply consistently across the wiki.

Strata are of course only found in sets, but each stratum can still be considered individually. "Shoes" are, likewise, found in pairs, and Google finds "shoes" three times more common than the singular "shoe". Nevertheless, the article is at Shoe, presumably based on the principles of WP:PLURAL. We need consistency, though, so if this article stays at Strata, we should begin a discussion to draft a new set of naming conventions regarding plural v. singular titles. Osiris (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously I gave this thought in the first place. As 'stratum' the word is very seldom used (and I know the literature of geology and palaeontology quite well). Overwhelmingly, on our pages, the plural 'strata' is the word used. As a foreign language word, many would not recognise this type of plural. My thinking is that on Simple we should not be absolutely bound by En wiki guidelines where there is reason to think differently for our target audience. After all, guideline are guidelines, they are not mandatory instructions. On the broader question of article titles we have already decided that we are not bound to use the En wiki title, and there is often good reason not to.

My only concern here, as elsewhere, is to make reading a pleasant and straightforward process. As science writers on Simple, we face many difficult compromises. We should ease up on the formalities where there is reason. Of course, it is a judgement call.

On revision, I would say almost all our guidelines need revision, and many are quite wrong as they stand. I devoted precious time to saying what was wrong with our GA and VGA guidelines, to no effect. The page which explains Simple English is quite hopeless for technical subjects. We have had people with extreme views either changing pages so they are no longer science, or alternatively refusing to change anything. However, experience shows that getting agreement on changes to guidelines is very time-consuming, and meanwhile common sense is often a better guide that our written-down rules. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that we must think differently to other versions of Wikipedia. But that does not mean that our own practices should be inconsistent. If we're to diverge from the established naming conventions, then we should come up with some basic principles of our own to guide editors, and then apply them as consistently as possible. Otherwise there is nothing to stop this article from being moved to Stratum yet again based on those guidelines that everybody else thinks we're using. It at least should be acknowledged and agreed by the community that we are diverging from the naming conventions on the English Wikipedia; particularly WP:PLURAL since it wouldn't occur to most that the plural form of a word might be "simpler" than the singular (there is no reason for anybody to take commonality into account when it comes to choosing between plural and singular, so simplicity would be the only argument). Osiris (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the root cause here is the foreign origin of the word. It just doesn't sound right to say "stratum", and it is seldom used. Most often one hears "bed" for a single layer of rock or deposit. Arriving at a site one might say "Which bed are you working on now?". That usage is common in both palaeontology and archaeology. Hmmm... now I've thought of it, I can feel a new page coming on... Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the plural is more common suggests that they're usually examined together, rather than individually. Let's just say that we're choosing the plural because it's more likely to be in someone's vocabulary. Osiris (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]