This is definitely one of those weird cases where English is a funny language and I don’t think either is really wrong. That being said, all things being equal it is certainly the more fidelitous option to give deference to whichever phrasing is more consistent in primary sources.
This is how its referred in Kaplan
and this is how the UWorld textbooks refer to it as well and that’s how ive seen it in my class textbooks as well
Thats is where I was getting my references from, I’ve always seen it as “stranded” so I was confused
Yeah, I definitely double-checked those as well. Feel free to re-suggest and, if you don’t mind, include in the suggestion rationale that this is supported by both Kaplan and UWorld.
I think it ended up rejected just because there hadn’t been any movement on it for a while. Happy to take another look. 
Okay, I’m sorry but for the future I don’t think rejecting the suggestion just because it had been there a while is not much of a valid reason nor is a random wikipedia page, i’ve had suggestions reconsidered after months of no movement I had to bump it to get reevaluated because I thought they were important changes. I’m just here to help like you guys too but thanks for offering to take a second look.
I totally get that and your contributions are very welcome.
I’m not sure that that’s why it was rejected, I’m presuming as much. It’s easy enough to get a backlog on suggestions that makes life harder in maintaining the deck, and suggestions that lose traction or end up in stasis otherwise will sometimes be cleared out if there’s not a consensus on approving them. Leaving them up indefinitely isn’t always workable.
For wikipedia: for sure we try to hew to MCAT-specific sources for a number of reasons, and don’t want to go by wikipedia articles. I’m happy to explain further the reasoning there if it’s helpful.
As the deck, and the user base, grows we have to create systems that are both fair and scalable. This has in part meant being more judicious in what, and how, we parse suggestions to keep the process viable and equitable both for users as well as the maintainers.
But, I definitely agree that the suggestion has merit and happy to take another look at it. Feel free to re-suggest and I’ll make sure it gets another gander, and happy to answer any questions otherwise if I can be of help.