The following questions are duplicates:

The accepted answer (by Peter Shor) in the token list question has reasoning, exceptions, an ngram chart, and also answers the typical case.

The accepted answer in the user accounts question is just <singular-noun> <plural-noun> is the way to go. (with some formatting). Even taking the 3 answers to this question together, Peter Shor's answer is still more comprehensive.

The token list question was closed as a duplicate of the user accounts question. To further Stack Exchange's goal to build libraries of high-quality questions and answers, whichever question and whichever answer has the highest quality should be made canonical.

I'd like to request a review of whether the direction of the duplicate closure furthers that goal.

UPDATE As R.M. points out, the questions are actually different and should not be considered duplicates of each other. That is, it would appear that good answers to one don't work for the other. If so, we should consider de-linking the questions (i.e. neither is a duplicate for the other).

  • After saying all that, I believe the title of the older question is more helpful, and although the answers are terribly brief, they are 100% correct. Dwight's answer on the older question is in fact helpful due to its conciseness and clarity. And lastly, the older question has more answers and has been visited more often.
    – Mari-Lou A
    Apr 8, 2016 at 7:20
  • @Mari-LouA If the question is deemed better by the mods, I think they can move the other answer over.
    – Lawrence
    Apr 8, 2016 at 7:21
  • They could... but then they should have to merge the dozens and dozens of good answers posted on duplicate questions on the original questions too. Why not ask Shore to post a new updated answer on the older question, and give as a further example, the "tokens list".
    – Mari-Lou A
    Apr 8, 2016 at 7:24
  • @Mari-LouA Good suggestion, but I might just leave this for the mods to sort out :) .
    – Lawrence
    Apr 8, 2016 at 7:27
  • @Mari-LouA About the potential merges: practically, it only needs to be done when brought up; philosophically, SE is about building a repository of definitive and well-supported questions and answers. If there's an answer that fits the bill, it ought to be promoted as canonical. Whether it's RegDwigнt's or Peter Shor's or someone else's, the community can judge for itself.
    – Lawrence
    Apr 8, 2016 at 7:31
  • 6
    I'd like to take the opportunity to oppose the logic that original questions are intrinsically superior to newer ones because of their age. It's the quality of the answers that should count, who cares if a question was posted three years ago instead of five. If the newer question is clearer and the answers as a result superior and more helpful we shouldn't hesitate to reverse the questions' status if need be. (Glad I got rid of that stone in my shoe....)
    – Mari-Lou A
    Apr 8, 2016 at 7:31
  • Arghh, I literally translated an Italian idiom in English :) Does it work?
    – Mari-Lou A
    Apr 8, 2016 at 7:37
  • @Mari-LouA The stone in your shoe? Yes, it's sufficiently idiomatic in English the way you've written it :) .
    – Lawrence
    Apr 8, 2016 at 7:43
  • @Mari-LouA - the "stone" is actually just a "sassolino".
    – user66974
    Apr 8, 2016 at 8:32
  • @Josh61 yeah, it should be a "pebble", but it didn't sound right to me :)
    – Mari-Lou A
    Apr 8, 2016 at 9:59
  • 2
    @Mari-LouA: I agree that "that stone in my shoe" is perfectly understandable — "pebble in my shoe" is used, but less commonly — but "I'm glad I got that off my chest" is a more popular idiom. Apr 9, 2016 at 5:22
  • @Josh61 I googled sassolino, found this at the top of the list. :)
    – Lawrence
    Apr 9, 2016 at 6:39
  • 1
    @Lawrence - that is a surname. This is the expression I am referring to: wordreference.com/iten/…. :)
    – user66974
    Apr 9, 2016 at 7:24
  • @Josh61 That explains it :) .
    – Lawrence
    Apr 9, 2016 at 7:46
  • Are we ignoring the elephant in the room that Peter Shor's answer doesn't apply to kiamlaluno's question, and that RegDwigнt et al.'s answers don't apply to David Sutton's question? kiamlaluno is asking "if you have a noun adjunct phrase XXX YYY, how do you refer to more than one (i.e. multiple YYYs)?". David Sutton is asking "if you have a single YYY which consists of multiple XXXs, how do you write that as a noun adjunct phrase?" - There might be Qs&As which covers both, but as it currently stands they don't.
    – R.M.
    Apr 19, 2016 at 21:02


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .