Talk:Axes conventions

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article Title[edit]

Should be "Axis Conventions". The first word is a noun being used as an adjective, and in English adjectives are never plural. 192.150.204.7 (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Dan[reply]

Comment:

Nouns used as adjectives can be plural, since they are implied objects of prepositions. Axes conventions = conventions about axes, whereas axis conventions = conventions about an axis, which is not accurate here since three axes are involved. Examples: People mover, Teeth cleaning. On the other hand, with plurals formed in the regular way (-s or -es) the singular form is typically used for the adjective even when the meaning is plural: e.g. Breast enhancement, Tree line.

Loraof (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes the adjectival noun is pluralized even though it has a regular plural, as in Real options valuation. Loraof (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree:

I agree with the proposal of the first user, Dan, to change the title. The correct title is "Axis conventions", for the same reason we eat apple pies rather than apples pies.

Being able to cite a few exceptions does not prove that this should also be an exception. As a matter of fact, it doesn't seem that Loraof is explicitly against the idea of changing the title: Loraof seems merely to be saying that the statement used by Dan for justification contains some factual errors. I have hence taken the liberty of tagging Loraof's comments as "Comment".

—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I furthermore suggest that this should be raised as a formal proposal to seek consensus. —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

"Axis conventions" is the more common terminology in scholarly work. See [1], notwithstanding WP:SET.

More particularly, when restricting to years in which Wikipedia could not have had any influence (e.g. prior to 2000), the ratio is even more pronounced. (I would also argue that the standard of English used in academic work the previous century was better than in the current century, for various reasons.)

—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Axes conventions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]