Talk:The 37's

Rename
Memory Alpha:Naming conventions holds that singular forms of nouns are to be preferred. Since Earhart is asked, "Are you a 37?" in this episode, it's clear that a singular form is canonically available to us.

Moreover, reorienting the article to the singuar gets us around the "should the apostrophe be there or not" issue, which is currently being debated at Talk:The 37's (episode). And that's a good thing, because, honestly, there is no reasonable defense for using the apostrophe, since the script makes it clear that it's meat to imply plurality, not possessiveness. Fine for us to use the apostrophe in our article about the episode, but not here. Using it here means that we would be taking a typo from the extra-diegetic, non-narrative credit sequence into an in-universe article.

If we had an on-screen LCARS graphic which said "37's", we'd have to live with that. But we don't, so we should just steer around the conflict by reverting to standard naming conventions and going singular. 13:51: Fri 25 May 2012
 * There's no reason that this should be moved. We can assume that the episode was so named due to the group. And the group named due to the fact that they belong to the year 1937. Ergo, "the 1937's" as in, 1937's people that were taken. -- sulfur 14:12, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. If the episode uses 37 as a singular noun, then that overrides any concerns over whether the apostrophe is correct or not. It is only a side benefit that following naming conventions allows us to skip over the apostrophe argument. In the same way that our article is at photon torpedo and not photon torpedoes, this article must be at the singular.

(By the way though, if it were possessive as you claim then a lot of sentences throughout the script are grammatically incorrect. A possessive is definitionally an adjective, not a noun, so you can't use "the 37's" in the same places in a sentence that you can "the 37s".)  14:37: Fri 25 May 2012
 * I'm in agreement with Sulfur; I see little reason to move it. People are not going to look for "37" when looking for this group; they will look for the current title. 31dot 14:52, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Every Trek script is rife with grammatical errors, punctuation errors, and otherwise. But it's the best we have to go with.
 * Of course, you can use a possessive term as a "short form/slang" phrasing in there. We do it all the time as English speaking (and destroying) people :) -- sulfur 15:53, May 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting question. The answer depends on whether or not this article is referring to the individuals in the group (for instance, Klingon, which is singular, despite the fact that there are many Klingons) or the group itself (for instance, the Cestus Comets, which is plural, because that is the name of the group). I'm leaning towards the latter. -Angry Future Romulan 16:49, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a compelling argument to override Memory Alpha:Naming conventions. Why are we attempting to use the plural when the singular is made clear in the script in at least two places? I reject 31dot's assertion that people are any more likely to look for the plural here than they do for photon torpedoes or phasers, both of which are much more frequently used in the plural than the singular. Moreover "37's" is a completely non-narrative spelling, whereas 37 has the virtue of being an in-universe name. Logically, singular names we actually hear in the diegetic portion of the soundtrack should take precedence over mere episode titles when it comes to in-universe articles. 14:01: Sat 26 May 2012


 * So should Cestus Comets be Cestus Comet? 31dot 15:18, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Photon torpedoes and phasers do not refer to groups. 31dot 15:21, May 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose renaming this, for the reasons already mentioned. - 05:28, May 30, 2012 (UTC)