Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Plural noun header[edit]

Is there a need for the header Plural noun?
Many articles (like radishes) are plurals, but use the header Noun.
I agree, stadia is an irregular plural, but does that justify a special header?
By the way, how many times does Plural noun occur in the English Wiktionary?
—This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

All over the place; there is even a template specifically for plural nouns! As far as I know, it is what one is meant to do. By the way, please sign your comments on talk pages and other discussion fora with four tildes (4~). Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 09:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Nota bene: following entry format reforms, both singular and plural nouns are now included under ===Noun=== headers as standard.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What kinds of plural?[edit]

Why does the second definition state that stadia is the “[p]lural form of stadion”, whilst the third definition states that stadia is the “[i]rregular plural form of stadium”? Stadia is clearly an irregular plural of both stadion and stadium — however, that is obvious, and does not need stating in a definition line which could mislead readers into inferring proscription. I believe both definitions should use the {{plural of}} template; however, more important than which template they should use is that they use the same template. Unless anyone has any objections, I’ll change both definitions to use {{plural of}}, but I’ll ensure this page remains in Category:English irregular plurals by adding the category thereto.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I should get in the habit of checking for talk page entries now that they are starting to get used. I encountered this page during routine heading cleanup. AFAIK, "===Plural noun===" has never been a valid heading on; I think the question above (or the answer to it) confused headings and templates.
When I cleaned this entry up, I only tagged one as irregular as a result of checking the targets and seeing that stadion has only this as its plural. While the "Latinate" plural for stadium clearly exists, it just as clearly is less common than the regularly formed plural. Rather than emphasize that, though, you perhaps are right; both should simply be listed as irregular. I'll correct that oversight now. --Connel MacKenzie 05:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Synonyms were also missing. --Connel MacKenzie 05:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Comparing b.g.c. shows a 4 to 3 ratio in favor (surprisingly) of stadia. Regular hits show quite the opposite - 3.5 to 0.6 in favor of "stadiums". The and results also favor "stadiums" by an order of magnitude. This entry for "stadia" should probably indicate that it is used only in formal writing (prescription gone awry.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don’t know how valid a heading it was, but it was certainly valid enough to be the header given in the entry template one was given when he clicked the “Plural” button on this sort of page. There’s no need to use the nocap=true parameter of the {{plural of}} template, as {{irregular plural of}} exists (and now autocategorises a page into Category:English irregular plurals); I’ve replaced your circumencypherments therewith. Lack of synonyms noted; thanks for correcting that. (Please note the correct format therefor.) Best to discuss the usage of the plurals at the singular entry (as there are two of the former); I’ll go add a usage note mentioning the preference for stadia in formal writing and the preference for stadiums in other contexts to the entry for stadium.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's why it is called scope-creep. (I usually let AF handle that, but thank you.) Note that "#" is only used at the beginning of a line in definition sections. Any time that appears in a =synonyms= section, it is an error. --Connel MacKenzie 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Thinking about it, a bullet does look better; the standard be damned!  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
What standard are you referring to? --Connel MacKenzie 23:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Inferred common practice. Not really a standard I guess.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Whew. Glad to hear there isn't something out there that directly conflicts with WT:ELE. The statistics depend upon this (only using that assumption, because ELE is so explicit about it.)
By the way, were you planning on adding a usage note at "stadiums?" That hasn't been bot-entered yet - probably worthwhile to enter it manually if a usage note is desired. --Connel MacKenzie 00:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The usage note is given at stadium. Both stadia and stadiums now refer the reader thither.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks again. --Connel MacKenzie 00:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You’re welcome. I’m not too fond of “irregular plural form of” definitions, as I think that they can mislead readers. However, consistency is the most important thing at the moment. Whether such definitions ought to be used is a debate for another time, methinks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


I have Wolf&Ghilani 11th ed. and the way they use the word "stadia", it's not clear what exactly a stadia is, or whether the word is singular or plural. "Stadia can also be applied", "the stadia method", "stadia radiation", "stadia hairs", but never "the stadia" or "a stadia" without a following noun. The rod is just called "the rod", and the term "stadia" is used only in the sense of measuring horizontal distance by sighting a vertical rod. It looks like the sense was transferred from the military sense, and a stadia is therefore a telescope with stadia hairs, not a leveling rod. PierreAbbat 16:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)