Forum:Plural vs Singular weapon type pages

From Old School RuneScape Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Redwood Grove > Plural vs Singular weapon type pages
Replacement filing cabinet.svg
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 2 July 2020 by Spineweilder.

Our Weapons page is currently plural. Similarly, on our Weapons/Types page, we refer to all the weapon types as plural, as they're referring to all items within that type. However, some of our page names for weapon types such as Longsword, Battleaxe, etc. are not plural, despite all of them immediately referring to them with plurals in the page content. This thread is to gain consensus to move all of them to plural names.

I got these pages from Category:Weapon types, let me know if I missed any :)


Support - As proposer, plurals read better and are more correct as they're referring to multiple items and not singular items. zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  16:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment - This extends beyond weapons and weapon types, given that it is a labelling of types of something, armour, Armour/Melee armour, Armour/Magic armour, Armour/Ranged armour, Armour/Prayer armour, if applicable, along with their subtypes, like medium helmet, etc... should also be put on the lists of pluralise or not. There may be more from armour, and other supersets of item that would need to be included in this case. I'll post my thoughts decision later. Choppetalk 19:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - In favor of singular. I'm fairly neutral in this, however in the pages presented, and the more I look at others, there are two ways to describe them: slightly more in-depth disambiguation pages, in which the plurality of the item is consistent with a singular item, robe is still robe, boots are boots and the other being a short collection of common traits of those items followed by a list of items that this tends to be applicable to. For example, the page that initally brought this up longsword. You can ask "What is a longsword?" or "What are longswords?" essetially meaning both plural title and singular title are correct and fine. It compares what a longsword generally is vs other weapon types, followed by the combat styles a longsword uses. A weapon type of "Longsword" has those properties. Plurals do read better, but nothing stops the article introduction from having Longswords. There is already a standard form to this in the form of disambiguation pages, which while these are slighty different, embody the same effect. Choppetalk 20:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In your oppose, I don't see any actual reasoning for keeping it singular, only reasoning that plural and singular are effectively the same and that there's an existing unwritten rule for singular. Imo people will be searching for plural as I think plural is most often used and is most easily read, so we should use plural as the page name. If they're effectively the same then it only makes sense to go with what's searched more often. zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  15:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
There isn't a particularly strong way to oppose this. I did say both are technically correct and fine, however they are not the same. The main two points are that the title in our example Longsword is a specifc property of the weapon and that it functions as a disambiguation page. I've brought the first point up in the initial discord discussion which I didn't really mention here thoroughly, however, it seems to be discarded in your consideration. Longswords generally have specific values related to them, aka 'this is what constitutes a longsword', one-handed (most of the time), slash, 5 attack speed (most of the time), and a different allocated of stats. I've brought up the hierarchy of naming in discord as well. Where you have "Tools" -> "Hammer" -> "Claw Hammer"/"Ball-peen Hammer"/"Stonemason's Hammer". There are instrinsic properties of a tool that makes a hammer what it is. Then they are more specific subsets, that have their own properties differentiating them from each other while holding true to the main premise of hammer. I know when I originally brought this up, your response was something similar to, that doesnt mean it cannot be "Hammers", and you are partially right, it wouldn't sound wrong, but it is about the property of it being a hammer, I'm not sure how else to word it. I think the previous standard came out without realizing why, currencies, seeds, arrows, bolts are good examples of this, they are non-noted stackable items. You have the counter in the top right of the inventory icon, and generally speaking don't only have one, but also because of inconsistency by Jagex, where all bolts are named "bolts" and arrows are named "arrow". Weapons are not stacked together unless noted. They are as a singular item of themselves, when usable, apart from instances I'll bring up soon. But this also lends to a bigger picture, if we changes these to plural, that means going through to pages like Hotspot, and making the same arguement for/against it, which would be a good course of action should we consider making the suggested pages plural. The same arguements apply to them though, so it would likely mean changing a lot of pages. So as mentioned there are things where plurals make sense (if we are to enforce singular), Claws are named so in game, so those should stay the same, Battlestaves should be Battlestaff (weapon), Throwing knife should be knives, Throwing axe should be axes, Dart should be darts, Chinchompa (disambiguation) should be Chinchompas (though this disambig has hunter, pet, and location, so maybe a different page of Chinchompas (weapon) makes more sense). There is also a difference (imo) between over-arching weapon type pages like Stab weapons versus sword or dagger, stab weapons page lists weapon types that have stab as their highest attibute, not a specific property of a type of item so it makes more sense to pluralise that if it were singular. I think mainly it is preferential because it really depends on which way you want to look at it, but in my opinon with what I've said above, there is actual reason, even only slightly so, to be singular, but there is no reason it should be plural other than it sounds better in prose, which it already is pluralised there (and maybe it should not be because of what I am stating here even though it does flow better), or people will search it more (that is what redirects are for). Also because of the things mentioned above, where longswords have shared attributes and weapon type specifics, being searched more often should not invalidate its page being the name of the type of weapon. Pluralisation means its a list like Stab weapons, where there is a single shared point of interest, stab bonus, that is not the case for the specific pages like dagger where multiple attributes are shared between dagger types. Choppetalk 17:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I just don't understand your reasoning and was hoping you would explain it better because I still don't understand it. I don't understand what you mean by "longsword" being a specific property of an item and how that equates to the longsword page being singular instead of plural. The longsword page is referring to many items with the name "longsword" in them, and as such the page name should be plural. That's my reasoning. I don't understand how "Stab" is not a specific property of "weapons" in your example. A singular attack type "stab" and multiple weapons "weapons". It's page name makes sense to me. Longsword is multiple different implied attributes -5 attack speed, slash weapons, 1-handed- of multiple weapons, so would make sense as plural. With regards to searching, I don't understand your reasoning so I am saying that if they are equally as "correct", then the page name should be based on what's searched more. zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  18:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The longsword page is not ONLY just referring to many items with the name the longsword, it has a secondary category including many things that do not include it in the name, as well as including in the introductory prose what the classification "longsword" means for the general items belonging to this category + combat styles. The page itself is larger than just a list of items like stab weapons. Stab is a singular property of something, it is specific, narrow, and without need for any real explanation can list all weapons that have higher stab bonuses/combat styles, therefore it is just a list(along with the table which doesn't change much). Longsword is a generic term, by itself as the title, you do not know what longswords attributes innately are, so the page goes to explain the perks of them, as well as the combat menu styles that are shared between all longswords. Then it goes on to list the normal metal longswords followed by the non-standard weapons that are longswords without it being explicitly known that they are some of the time. The property of longsword I am referring to is that all weapons are classified in a hierarchy. In a simple sense, "weapons" that splits into ranged/mage/melee, then from those, melee splits into stab/slash/crush, slash in particular splits into Sickle/Machete/Axe/Claws/Cutlass/Scimitar/Scythe/Longsword/Battleaxe/Whip/Two-handed sword/Halberd. Then you have the specific actual items of each of those. Each of those in that list is a type of weapon, it has innate stats/bonuses/combat styles/etc. It is not just this item is a longsword, this is a longsword meaning it has this list of attributes unless otherwise mentioned. If the page did not have to specify the attributes/styles of all longsowrds and was strictly the two tables or a list of things that were considered longswords, then yes the page should be "Longswords", but it isn't. They are equally correct depending on how you look at it, meaning it wouldn't matter THAT much to have it as Longswords, but it isn't correct looking at from a classification/attribute way that I am. The search thing I am referring to, is that because I see Longsword as an attribute of the weapon, meaning it embodies certain traits and those traits need to be specificly laid out in prose, that Longsword is a type, a parent class, of each specific longsword, therefore Longsword is the only right answer because it is not about the list, but what a longsword IS. I'm not sure I can make this any clearer if anyone would like to try if I failed this time. Choppetalk 19:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I can see why "A longsword is..." is as correct as "Longswords are..." in prose. I believe I understand how you're viewing the page but I don't understand why you are viewing it that way. I don't see why Slash Weapons doesn't split into Longswords for you and why it splits into Longsword for you. I'm reading this as you saying that types are singular, which they aren't, types of Items, Weapons, splits into types of Weapons, Melee Weapons, which splits into types of Melee Weapons, Slash Weapons, which splits into types of Slash Weapons, Longswords, which splits into specific singular longswords such as Bronze longsword, Iron longsword, etc. If it ended at Longsword, then it wouldn't split any more so it would be singular. I don't see why your view ends the plurals at Longsword and not at the item names.

The Longsword page is both a list and explains what it means by Longsword in prose, as is Stab weapons, it's both a list and explains what it means by Stab weapons in prose. They are both lists and both about what the page subject is. Stab weapons only has less prose about what Stab weapons are because it has a single attribute (it is also wrongly named too actually since it's not solely about weapons and should be split or renamed, but for a different day!), Longswords has multiple attributes so it has more prose explaining what Longswords are. It also has a lot of useless prose such as comparisons to scimitars and to 2hs, similar comparisons could be added to Stab weapons too (although that entire section on Longsword is terrible and has some statements that aren't always true so I would recommend not and the 2nd sentence on Stab weapons is also wrong). The prose about what attributes Longswords have could be done in a single sentence such as "'''Longswords''' are 5 [[tick]] [[weapons]] with a primary [[slash]] [[attack bonus]], secondary [[stab]] attack bonus, and all share the same combination of [[combat options]] as listed below.". I don't see how the amount of prose or amount of attributes effects the singularity/plurality of the type. zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  00:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I honestly do not know how to effectively explain my position any more than I have. Choppetalk 04:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Singular - I think singular ends up being easier/more natural for a reader to find, and is more likely to be searched by people who want information about every weapon of a certain type. BigDiesel2m (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you give any data regarding searches? Personally, I think the exact opposite in terms of both reading and searching and see 0 reason to believe otherwise unless there actually is a significant amount more searches for singular than plural. zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  15:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Having looked at the data a bit more, it seems that while singular terms are relatively more common as a search term, neither is searched enough to warrant basing our policies off of. We should go with what makes sense, which I'm starting to lean towards being plural. BigDiesel2m (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Singular - as Choppe. Article can still start with Longswords if applicable. Beach1 (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Singular - per Choppe. Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 21:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Support plural - we are writing about a subject, not an individual item. For a dictionary singular would be better, but not for an (ahem) encyclopaedic work. Rich Farmbrough (talk)

Reply - Can't it be argued that it's a single type of an item and that the articles would include examples of them? A longsword is a... Examples include: [...] - Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 15:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it can also be argued that this continues up the chain and this works: "A Longsword is a type of Slash Weapon, a Slash Weapon is a type of Melee Weapon, a Melee Weapon is a type of Weapon, and a Weapon is a type of Item." are you saying that we should move Slash weapons to Slash weapon, Melee weapons to Melee weapon, Weapons to Weapon, and Items to Item as well (although at the moment, we actually have melee weapons redirect to Weapons#Weapon requirements). zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  00:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I guess I wouldn't view it as applicable going up the chain since those become more like a descriptive subject, or something with an adjective, while longsword is about a specific subject. Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 22:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutral - I've been going back and forth on this and I honestly can't come up with a stance anymore. However, regardless of outcome I expect that we change all instances to match. We should not have most being plural with some exceptions. -Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 21:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Plural vs Singular weapon type pages. Request complete. The reason given was: thread closed

Singular - I'm not really an editor here so I don't exactly have a dog in this race, but I feel like singular makes more sense in this case. You're writing about a weapon type, and that weapon type should have its title be its dictionary name. You're not writing about a weapon type called "longswords", you're writing about one called a "longsword". I feel like singular is just more natural to read in this case, and mpossibly more appropriate too. ɳex undique 01:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Singular - per nex Baby mole chathead.png 'beefy' star (hmu x) Star bauble (unpainted) detail.png 17:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Close - As there has been no discussion on the topic for nearly a month and and a lack of consensus on preferred usage, this thread is hereby closed. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 01:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)