Talk:Wind of 120 days

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wryn4832.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 October 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wind of 120 days → 120-day wind – The phrase "120-day wind" flows better than the flowery "wind of 120 days" (and is more in line with the literal Persian, at least according to Google Translate). Google searches for "120 day wind", "120-day wind" and "wind of 120 days" show a moderate preference for "120-day wind" but the original article and several sources use "wind of 120 days" so I want to check in first.  Ignatz mice•talk 18:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Slight oppose, per the ngram results and the nom research. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems natural, but "seems" and "sources" are not synonyms Red   Slash  05:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Completely baseless nomination (but of course good faith assumed). Nom's own research indicates that the current article is the common name in Engllsh. Appeal to the translation is not only irrelevant but also naive. A literal translation may work as they say, but dynamic equivalence would go with usage, as Wikipedia does. Andrewa (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: To your point about "appeal to translation", that was more secondary to my intention. From what I understand after reading the link to "dynamic equivalence", the dynamically equivalent phrase would be "120-day wind", at least to my ear. Perhaps "flowery" wasn't the best way of putting it, but my contention (now that I think hard enough to articulate it properly) is that "wind of 120 days" at least appears to be a genitive construction when really "120-days-long" is an adjective modifying "wind"; IMHO this makes the phrase jarring to read. You will note that older sources use "wind of 120 days" while some of the more modern sources and newspaper articles use "120-day wind".  Ignatz mice•talk 05:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.