Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. National Historical Park

NHS, NHLD, NRHP vs. Protected Area designations

Parts or all of the site are variously designated as NRHP-listed, a NHL district, and/or a National Historic Site. The article included a Protected Areas infobox but it is not an international IUCN-designated natural environmental protected area, so i am removing the Protected area infobox and otherwise stripping out those claims. Because a) it is an urban area and this is not a natural seascape or landscape area that might be eligible for IUCN designation; and b) it is not documented that this is IUCN designated. In fact there was a hidden comment in the infobox: "Note: site is not listed in IUCN database, but appears to conform with Category V". doncram (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

hall of fame

should move to a separate article imho dm (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Commas: too many, or too few?

In the last year, this article's title has had every combination of commas before and after the "Jr.". Two of these, with two commas or with no commas, are acceptable styles, according to most English grammar guides, while the current title and the other one-comma title are not. Should we fix this? Sometimes editors prefer to use the "official" name that the National Park Service uses. That's the one I moved to after an editor made the silly title with only a comma after Jr. But that got switched to the current odd title at some point. What's that about? Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

New consensus and guideline at WP:JR - default is no comma. Moving. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

And the claim that the comma is "official" is not supported by a look at the nps.gov page. Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. With regrets to Randy Kryn, who feels very strongly about this topic, but the community consensus on the Jr. comma issue has become very clear over the past year, through the latest RfC leading to WP:JR, and reams and reams of other discussion. And the local consensus here once again backs up that wide community consensus. Supporters outnumber opposers heavily, and cite reasonable evidence including reliable sources and a stone at the site to suggest that the condition "The comma can be used in cases where it is clearly and consistently preferred for a particular subject in current, reliable sources" is not met.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site → Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site – Fix the unbalanced comma again, per the preference of WP:JR. Randy had an admin unfix it, putting back the unbalanced comma, which is silly. Dicklyon (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Admin note: following discussino on my talk page at User talk:Amakuru#Comma fix in title, I have now reverted this to the version of the article that stood between 2009 and 2015, and which features two offsetting commas rather than one unbalanced one. The move request to a no comma version can still stand though. Pinging Dicklyon, Randy Kryn, Mandruss, Checkingfax, Malik Shabazz, and Tony1 who already voted so they're aware of this change to the status quo.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood. More than a little pointless while this RM is open, but whatever. Thanks for the ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom – per WP:JR and noting that the comma-free styling is among the styles in use, even in official sources such as this sign and this NPS web page. Also tripadvisor and National Park Foundation and Expedia and this book on National Parks (others use one or two commas; the law that established it used two, but that's not the preferred WP style). See also precedents at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. Day#Requested move 22 April 2016 and Talk:Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Library#Requested move 4 May 2016. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  The sign you linked to with the stylized commas-as-lines also has many photos above and below it. Hopefully the closer will look at those (and research this RM for a couple of hours, making a mental map of the data, before a decision is made). Randy Kryn 00:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  Yes we can stipulate that styles vary, on signs and other sources. So there's no problem going with WP's preferred style. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, this is the oddest one yet. The name of the place includes the comma, although maybe with another comma after Jr.: here is the direct National Historic site paperwork (commas included, but it does show a comma both before and after Jr.) and look at the 17th, 18th, and 19th items on this one, showing the National Park paperwork on the site (commas included). Then the fact that the name on the building includes the comma (see large photo - nobody has chiseled off the comma as yet - and surrounding text) as does the famous tomb of Martin Luther King, Jr. We are an encyclopedia. We report on "what is", and this site is assuredly named 'Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site' (from the get-go until today). And yes, importantly, it contains the man's commaized tomb, an international point of pilgrimage. Randy Kryn 23:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Sources do not clear the "clearly and consistently preferred" threshold specified in WP:JR. It's a high bar, and it's intended to be so. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  Again, we are an encyclopedia. A bar that is set at 'consistent' is no bar at all, I've seen people here use that term to mean that if a few sources lack a comma then they take it to mean that our encyclopedia should toss out all the sources, real life information, chiseled-in-stone data (literally), and common sense as well as common name, and shift our perspective to, again literally, misinform. Randy Kryn 00:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  Be careful which stone you invoke, Randy. Dicklyon (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  That stylized-comma replacement is interesting, but the building surrounding it has the comma along the name on the top of it. And then there is this sign on the stone wall of the place. Randy Kryn 00:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  Forget all the other reliable sources for the moment. Survey of treatment on the National Park Service's main web page: HTML page title: no comma. Content page title: no comma. Signage on Visitor Center, as shown in the photo: comma. Caption for the photo: comma. To see enough consistency to meet the threshold is clear cherry-picking, the unsupported claim that building signage, which is difficult to change, should be given more weight than web content, which is not. If NPS's current preference is for the comma, they would have reflected that consistently on their main web page for the site. It's obvious enough to me that they don't have that much of a preference at all, that you care a lot more about that comma than they do. They are also inconsistent with the period after Jr, showing that they see punctuation of the name as style elements that can vary depending on context and usage—not as the essential parts of the name that you so adamantly assert without foundation. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support with no commas – per nom. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• This one should have a few pings, and also alerts to our American History, Georgia, and other related projects. Mitchumch Neonorange Brucehartford, more to come. Randy Kryn 00:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. As I've written before, when used in text (as in this article's title or in the National Historic site paperwork (thanks Randy)), the abbreviation "Jr." should either have zero or two commas. The current name is just wrong. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Mandruss. Tony (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – As it stands at this moment, there are 15 places in the article where a single comma is used, and 5 with a double comma. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per new policies about JR and commas. This is normal work. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 21:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support without commas per MOS:JR, the RfC behind it, and the entirely consistent no-commas result in the Jr./Sr. RMs since the RfC. This is a routine, speediable move by this point. (As for the version with only one comma, that was just grammatically wrong, even in an era when the comma use was common in US English.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment for the closer Not understanding how people who "vote" on these things get so caught up with the Manual Of Style, rules and regs and guidelines that a few of them spend literally every day creating and tinkering with. Yet they seem to forget that this is not a newspaper. It's not a magazine. It's an encyclopedia. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to share encyclopedic knowledge with the world? Dr. King's name with the comma is all over this historic district, all over its formation history (not to mention King's gravestone), and is spread right across the top of the Visitors Center and the signage. Yet they want the closer to decide, in a landslide of the very very tiny percentage of Wikipedians who both know about RM's and bother to post on them, that the encyclopedia should give its readers the wrong information. If I'm the lone voice on this I still think I'm right. Closings aren't supposed to be done by counting heads, they should be done taking into account that we are an encyclopedia. This National Historic Site includes the comma in Dr. King's name. It's up to the closer to choose if we are going to literally tell readers and researchers that they can't trust their lying eyes, or, and wouldn't it be nice, if the closer said "enough is enough" and let this accurate title remain. Randy Kryn 1:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Randy, your attachment to a comma in Dr. King's name is remarkably intense. But many sources, including our National Park Service, don't agree with you on that, and freely change the styling in different contexts. There is no "wrong information" involved in these various stylings. The full range of stylings appears in encyclopedias, as you can see here (yes, even both one-comma versions along with two-commas and no-comma versions). Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a 'styling', it is the real name of an iconic figure in world history. And the district where he lived, did his work, worshipped, and is buried, is named the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic District. It is the common name of the district. The paperwork and signage naming the district include the comma. When something physical is given a name, an actual place you can walk around in, explore, grab some lunch, buy a postcard, and visit a gravesite, should Wikipedia, as the world's premier encyclopedia, style it to fit a tight in-house box? And is there an n-gram on this, nobody has put one up yet. That would at least show a faded picture of how the district was defined in 2008 (I haven't figured out how to work the n-gram with commas within the searched-for term). Randy Kryn 12:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Books such as The Best Punctuation Book, Period treat is a styling issue, and contrast different styles; in particular the no-comma and two-comma styles (with MLK Jr. as their example), since the one-comma style is really a grammatical error. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2016 (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.

Maybe a new closer on this one?

The closer has participated in comma discussions, so I don't think a close by Amakuru is a good idea, even if someone else will come by and close it the same way. So could you please reverse this one, and I ask a new closer to carefully read my statements on the RM. As for "The comma can be used in cases where it is clearly and consistently preferred for a particular subject in current, reliable sources", I'd asked for one of those ancient n-gram searches but couldn't figure out how to do it with the comma included, can someone do one of those on these names before a close, which should have probably been done? The real name of the Historic District and the name without the comma. And "consistent" doesn't mean, or shouldn't, that if some sources don't list the comma then the real name is tossed overboard. This is one of the Catch-22 things people have been using, that word 'consistent', it's as if some newspaper of note mistypes "Declaration of independence" then that page name should automatically be changed. "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" or some such saying, and maybe that should be written into the "guidelines". Dicklyon has said that the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial may be the next RM, but that one is pretty obviously the well used common name, so I hope a precedent isn't set here of a close by someone who maybe has an already set opinion. Thanks, and no offense intended, just want to make sure the Memorial and the King page itself are given a very fair chance of keeping their names. Randy Kryn 22:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually Randy, I have no opinion at all on the Jr. question, and I don't believe I've ever voted support or oppose in any discussion on the topic. Correct me if I'm wrong. And my only involvement with this specific article was to move it back to the original title with the comma after it was initiall moved without discussion. I have moved a few other Jr articles in recent months, but only when they appear at WP:RMT, because those adhere to WP:JR and are therefore uncontroversial, and maybe one or two other closes of clear RM requests. This one is also a clear cut application of that guideline, given the weight of support and the arguments made, so respectfully again I will not be reversing what to me is a very obvious close. Take it to WP:MRV if you think there's something wrong with this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall a vote but I seem to recall a comment or two in favor of comma-less pages, although I may be wrong also. But your close here does show that you think there is a year-long consensus on this while, if you had followed it, editors who were for exceptions and grandfathering of pages (totally within the guidelines and closes) have been sort of bullied away, and even I have given up on saving the real names of other people, ships, etc. and have stuck to the King pages. The rest of the King pages seem to tilt towards the comma, and so if those are RM'ed I would hope that there can be a totally unbiased closer or even a team of closers (as in the Hillary Clinton close) who will give all sides an equal viewing (your close language here does seem to imply a bias, no?). Randy Kryn 23:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"Bullied away" is your spin for "deferred to a consensus they strongly disagreed with". You might try it. One does not have to be convinced, only outnumbered, and you couldn't be more outnumbered. This applies even if you perceive abuses of process, such as the grandfathering issue, unless you care to take the question to a higher level for discussion. This is how Wikipedia works, and it astounds me that you have been around as long as you have without learning that. You are a textbook one-man crusade, and I implore you, once again, to stop. Or, if you like, take the whole issue to a max-public venue like VPP or ANI (or ArbCom) and we can all have it out once and for all. We shall call it Commagate. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, as someone who is a regular RM closer, I endorse Amakuru's decision here. I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint Randy, but I think it's clear that in this case at least there was a clear consensus to move. Jenks24 (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Jenks24, you're probably right on this one, although changing the real name of the place should be problematic and actually worrisome for an encyclopedia. Had asked for a different closer because of precedent for the next RM's on this subject, hopefully a closer who takes every piece of data into consideration. Mandruss may think consensus is counting noses ("one does not have to be convinced, only outnumbered"), so the energy of his "astonishment" at me not knowing that can be used to educate himself about consensus. And check out the RM discussion at Joseph Kennedy Sr. for a time when more editors than myself were involved in questioning the decision to interpret policies and guidelines to obtain a result (there was also a renaming of a ship which resulted in one of the vocal editors leaving these discussions). On this Historic District RM, the problem seems to have been the National Park Service's website, which contains mixed messages as to this comma. That doesn't exist at the King Memorial page which has been announced as possibly the next RM Dicklyon is considering, and which has an overabundance of comma-evidence. Still wondering what an n-gram on this Historic District page would show, does anyone know how to do an n-gram which includes a comma? Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to do an ngram that differentiates between versions with a comma and those without.[1]  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The guideline does not refer to predominance of reliable sources, but says "clearly and consistently preferred". This is a higher bar than is usually applied to Wikipedia content, and this has been pointed out to you countless times, to apparently deaf ears. You don't like that clause, so you are determined to ignore it. Given the sources we already have, no amount of n-grams supporting the comma would clear that threshold, so I'm lost as to why you're talking about n-grams.
Further, "consensus is not about numbers" does not mean that we can unilaterally declare a consensus void because we disagree with it. Again, if you disagree, take it to a higher level. If you don't, someone else will, and it probably won't be VPP. I think I've been very civil by Wikipedia standards, but I'm pretty close to exhausting my patience, and I don't think I'm the only one. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

? I'm not going to challenge this close further, simply because of that website mistake on the Park Service's part (not the stylized stone mentioned by the closer which is, arguably, a design while includes the comma and period made into artistic lines). Consensus is not counting noses, but about weighing all of the data presented, and that's why I asked for an n-gram which, in the past, has been a standard form of "evidence". And if you are close to exhausting your patience, maybe a Wikibreak? Why would you be impatient about an editor pointing out that the article for a named site where Dr. King is buried should include (which it does in the physical universe) the name on his tombstone? Let such things play out, please, without losing patience, and do read the page on consensus to see what it is and what it isn't. Several people who had been defending the use of commas also lost patience, but at people not going by the naming provisions of the guidelines, and left these discussions. Maybe the anti-King comma editors can stop at this one, because the others have even more evidence that the comma-included is the common name. Or we can just go with removing the Jr. altogether and use just Martin Luther King in the titles, which is also one of King's two common names. Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090513010639/http://www.gainformer.com/Files/International%20Civil%20Rights%20Walk%20of%20Fame%20Inductees.htm to http://www.gainformer.com/Files/International%20Civil%20Rights%20Walk%20of%20Fame%20Inductees.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131023247/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1430&ResourceType=District to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1430&ResourceType=District

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  MOVED to the park (already done), but no addition of comma. The "no comma" was decided by a consensus in a last RM and is the status quo, so would require a consensus to change. But it is roughly against on the basis of consistency. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Amending close based on a request from SMcCandlish, to say that "no comma" was also decided as a general style as part of MOS:JR in an RfC that was not particular on applying to people or on that basis; while there was debate below over its applicability, no clear argument was put for that wider consensus in that RfC to not be applicable; thus this close is also based on the fact that a wider consensus exists against using a comma. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site → Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park – HR 267 signed by Trump on 1/8/2018 renaming the park unit. [2] — Eoghanacht ^talk 13:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). st170e 15:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The previous move request for this article resulted in no comma being used, therefore I don't think this move request is uncontroversial. st170e 15:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• I really want to support this...really I do, it's the man's name for God's sake, and it's the new and official name of the National Park, and the comma is chiseled right there, onto King's grave, until someone fills it in with marble-colored cement. But as a veteran of the comma wars I have PT,SD and so will watch this nom as other people swarm it, to see if it gets enough support to saddle up my horse (named Tornado, Jr.) and ride back into the fray. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that Randy claims below that this is not a support, so his support below is not a !double !vote. Don't !count it !twice. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct, I did finally support this RM after much more information came in, including the fact that WP:JR does not (boldfacing in guideline) apply to things named after people. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That's just wrong; the people-naming guideline WP:JR/SR does not apply here, but the MOS section that it forked from, WP:JR or MOS:JR does apply. Dicklyon (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support use of exact title as established in Federal Law. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• I guess I don't understand the background of the comma war. Why would Wikipedia remove it, if it is part of the official name [3]? — Eoghanacht ^talk 16:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Darned good question, Eoghanact. See WP:JR/SR for more info. See also #Requested move 28 June 2016. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – WP:COMMONNAME has upstages WP:OFFICIALNAME. Don't include a comma per COMMONNAME, WP:JR/SR, and WP:CONSISTENCY. CookieMonster755✉ 19:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• To answer your objections. MOS:JR does not apply to this RM. MOS:JR is on the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). The language at that page reads: "This guideline does not cover...things named after people (Basilica of St Denis, RMS Queen Elizabeth 2), or gods and deities." To repeat, it does not cover things named after people. This page is about a National Historical Park named after a person.

• With MOS:JR. off the table, you have a concern about COMMONNAME.

• WP:COMMONNAME is contained within the WP:ARTICLETITLES page, and also favors the use of the comma per the language: , and that means 51%. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The language reads: the name that is most frequently usedNot "95%". 51. The National Park Service has gone on record duplicating the signed legislation about the page's subject, the "Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park". The National Park Service, by using the comma - which they didn't use as the main title on the official website page for the sites former name - will guarantee that at least 51% of sources will use the official name.

• I don't know what your concern is about consistency. Are there other major National Historical Parks pages which relate to this RM? Thanks.

• In summary, MOS:Jr has nothing to do with this RM. It covers the names of individual people, not things named after individual people. And the official name of the Historical Park only has to be used by a majority of sources, 51 percent, and not a massive plurality. I hope, CookieMonster755, that this has addressed your concerns. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support changing "National Historic Site" to "National Historical Park" but oppose use of an unbalanced comma. The U.S. government can choose to ignore one of the basic rules of English punctuation—that a comma before Jr. in running text is followed by one after it—but we should not.[4][5][6][7] Let's choose an even number of commas, either zero or two, but not one. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose deviating from WP:JR here. Support changing Historic Site to Historical Park. The old official name "Martin Luther King, Junior, National Historic Site" at least didn't have the mismatched comma error legislated into it. But there's no reason we can't follow modern style guides and do it right, like NBC News does. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm wondering how the National Park Service website is going to present the name. They haven't updated the language on their website as yet, at least as of a few minutes ago. If a few more supporters show up at this RM I may jump back in, but you guys have convinced most of Wikipedia's editors that King's name without the comma is set in stone (even as his name with a comma is carved in stone). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• FYI, the NBC news article as both style forms within their article, so they are not a model of consistency. I can see using the WP style guide within the article, but it still seems absurd not to use the formal name as the article title... not that I am going to lose any sleep over it. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  They use the comma in he name of the legal Act, and in a quote; otherwise, in half dozen places, no comma. Similarly, en.wp uses the comma in names of legal cases, but not where it's optional. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• MOS:JR is off the table for this RM, as I pointed out to CookieMonster above. Since the page and RM are about a place named after an individual and not an individual, they are not covered by MOS:JR, and there is no deviation. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Randy is both right and wrong. Wikipedia's style guideline concerning the naming of biographical articles is irrelevant. What are not irrelevant are the dozens of other style guidelines that say commas come in pairs, including the MLA Handbook and the Chicago Manual of Style. Please note what the Chicago Manual says:

[B]eginning with the fourteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (1993), the recommendation is to use no commas in either case [Jr. or III]. But please note that within text, if you decide to use the more traditional comma before Jr. or Sr., the function of the comma is to set off these abbreviations, so an additional comma is needed after the abbreviation if the sentence continues.

• Like many things in life, commas tend to travel in pairs. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Would you agree, though, that since MOS:JR doesn't apply, and that the legislation as well as the National Park Service both use the comma, that either one comma or two commas should be used? Randy Kryn (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. You seem to have missed everything else I wrote. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Read it as you requesting that there be two commas if commas are used, and combined with your statement earlier that you didn't care if commas were used but if they are it should be zero or two, although if they were to be added then two would be the styling choice. The question was if you now agreed that the two commas should be used (I shouldn't have added "either one..."), and your reference to, but not outright agreement of the language in the Chicago manual, indicated you may have changed your mind and now believe that the title shouldn't contain the commas. I was just trying to clarify your position. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Honestly, the comma wars became tiring a long time ago. I didn't have an opinion early on in the debate, but the matter was resolved, we have a style, let's just stick to it (and saying WP:JR is off the table because this is not a person is just WikiLawyering, in my view, the guideline de facto covers cases like this, even if it explicitly limits itself to just human names). The debate about double commas above also highlights why the decision to omit them altogether was probably a good one. I'm neutral on the "site" vs "park" question, I don't have enough data right now to determine that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• The guideline page which contains WP:JR is quite specific: "This guideline does not cover...things named after people (Basilica of St Denis, RMS Queen Elizabeth 2), or gods and deities." The not in the guideline language is boldfaced there, for emphasis. This Historical Park is a place named after a person, so yes, it's off the table. Please don't try to confuse the closer or other editors by claiming this is wikilawyering, it's the opposite (wiki-public defendering?), and please consider rethinking your objection because of this specific language. The reason the RM request includes the name 'Historical Park' is that new legislation was signed last week changing the name from 'site' to 'Historical Park' (the legislation also expanded the park). The new name includes the single comma, and this name was then duplicated by the National Park Service website. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  When I say Wikilawyering I am talking about item #2 from WP:Wikilawyering, "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles". Evidently you and I disagree on this, but according to me it's clear from the decision made in the JR debates that we should be omitting commas when writing Jr. or Sr. on a name. Irrespective of whether it refers to a person or not. Because why would we make such a distinction? It makes no sense. Sure, the letter of the rule is that it doesn't apply to non-people, but how does that fit in with the spirit of the rule? It seems far better to me just to deprecate the comma everywhere, and then we don't have to keep arguing about it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support, since I haven't actually ivoted as yet, as I was waiting for the styling determination of the National Park Service. The styling of the comma here by both the national legislation and the Park Service agree with the nom, and since MOS:JR does not apply, the styling, even if deemed incorrect by some because it only uses one comma, is, just that, styling. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that it's a styling decision, Randy. That's progress since last time. And no reason to follow someone else's style when en.wp has its own. And when you said before, I really want to support this...really I do that wasn't a support? As long as you don't get counted twice, that's OK. Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I was holding off becoming involved in the comma wars again (PT,SD) and waiting for the National Park Service to make a decision. The Park Service took awhile, but eventually it put up their new page and followed the name in the congressional legislation. Since that styling is understandable, concise, and marks off every other box asked for in Wikipedia's titling criteria, there is no reason not to go along with the official name. What are your exact objections? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

My exact objection is that it is en.wp style to omit the comma, in agreement with essentially all modern style guides, to avoid the discordant grammatical error of the unmatched comma that is so grating, even when written into law by the idiots we elected and their illiterate staff. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose comma per WP:CONSISTENCY and MoS. The emotive arguments presented for the comma are arguments to rename Martin Luther King Jr., not this article in particular. WP:OFFICIALNAME is the issue here: WP doesn't move articles to match official names. WP doesn't follow the US Government Printing Office Style Manual which is notoriously bad when it comes to punctuation and various other matters. We have our own style guide, which eschews this comma, as do so many others. This is precisely why we had a big RfC at WP:VPPOL. It closed with a consensus to drop the comma (the closer also inserted some personal preference about maybe "grandfathering" old articles, but actual consensus in practice at RM has not done this, and WP has no means by which to do it – there is not and never has been a principle by which guidelines or policies can be ignored at an article simply because it's older than another one). What we're left with in s case like this is whether there's a compelling reason to ignore MOS:JR (as there is with regard to titles of published works with one or both commas in them – not a WP:IAR reason but a countervailing guideline, MOS:TITLES, which has us retain titles as-published, aside from cutesy marketing stylization, which we don't mimic per MOS:TM).

  I don't see such a compelling reason. RS do not use a consistent style, so we default to what MoS says to do (always, regardless what the style question is – punctuation, capitalization, etc.). Overriding MoS happens only when the vast majority of modern RS use a divergent style consistently, and that isn't the case here. WP:COMMONNAME is not a style policy, but even if it were we'd end up removing this comma since modern sources – both in book publishing and news publishing – routinely drop the comma, and current style guides don't recommend it. This is what was established in the RfC and the sourcing behind it. So, there is no argument to make at all in favor of the comma other than that some American traditionalists like the US government like to retain the comma (and often forget to include the second one). It's just not enough. And "it's the man's name for God's sake" is the personal PoV stuff that has poisoned this discussion for over a year and led to so much pointless and time-sucking strife over formatting trivia. By that kind of reasoning, we should move Julius Caesar to CAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR to match how he spelled it when he was alive.

  It is wikilawyering to try to escape MOS:JR scope. The explicit intent of the RfC about it was to cover cases like this; the consistent RM interpretation has been that it does other than for titles of published works; and there is no rationale for punctuating the name differently in the bio and things named after the subject of the bio (doing so would be against WP:CONSISTENCY policy). This is pure desperation to keep WP:BATTLEGROUNDing against MOS:JR, and that has to stop.

  But change "Site" to "Park" to match the changed status.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• What RfC above? Here is the link you left.
• Most of your argument above centers on WP:JR,, or about overriding it in this RM. That guideline has nothing to do with this RM. You and others are so used to using WP:JR that you are ignoring the language of the page, which asks us in bold lettering to not use it for things named after people. WP:JR was used almost exclusively in the June, 2016 RM which obviously now, in hindsight, incorrectly moved this page.
• Please reread some of what you wrote. You've been accusing me of the strangest things lately, and threatening me with some kind of expulsion, and just did it again above. Please apologize, and understand what you are writing. First of all, your first sentence, telling the closer and other editors outright what you decree as my intentions. You are not very good at that. What you describe as "The emotive arguments presented for the comma are arguments to rename Martin Luther King Jr., not this article in particular" is, in reality, the opposite (again). WP:JR is a done deal, I've written that often. Since it's a place named after a person, I do have an interest in renaming this one with the comma, and maybe the D.C. Memorial. That's all. I'd say "WTF?", but since I have to assume good faith, I guess guessing that your misunderstood and misinterpreted insight into my intentions, and presenting that insight as fact, isn't battleground. If not, it's at least mine-field. And I'm not going to threaten to run off and report you to the principal, as you keep threatening to do with me.

• In this RM I've presented and am presenting relevant and hopefully determinative information which I've only recently read (in the June, 2016, RM I trusted other editors that the use of WP:JR on this page was covered by some kind of law when, again, it's the opposite). So in any case, much of your argument above hinges on WP:JR which, as you now know, has nothing to do with this RM (and again I must assume good faith and believe that you and other policy-guideline savvy editors who used WP:JR to change the name of this page and the Memorial page, are as surprised as I am that it does not cover things named after people). As you are a firm believer in accurately listing and noting guideline, I'm seriously a little surprised you still mention WP:JR, and have not taken it out of your consideration.

• As for common name and article titles, as I point out above, the language reads "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." That language reads: the name that is most frequently used. So that's 51% of the time, not 95 percent. The language seems to suggest using the official name if it also meets the 51% threshold, which, with the Park's naming by the National Park Service, it should.

• And as for consistency, where else has the official name of a historical site been changed because of a styling difference? Let's stay consistent with that naming tradition on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you forget about Talk:Martin_Luther_King_Jr._Memorial#Requested_move_22_January_2017, where you said the comma-free naming was "settled"? Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That was written when I thought that WP:JR applied to the discussion. I was mistaken, it did not, and it does not, apply to things, such as the Memorial, named for people. Did you know that in June, 2016, when the last RM on this page was discussed and decided (see the RM above)? I'm certainly not a wikilawyer, that's apparent from me not knowing that WP:JR did not apply, and what I was doing was trusting you and others that it did. Hopefully, because you supported it "per WP:JR", you are as surprised as I am in finding out that it does not. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

But the consensus in numerous discussions was that WP:JR does apply to names generally, not just in titles of biographies. This is just one example of what you've asked for, where it was applied to a topic where "official" sources have included a comma. It's still "settled". Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You are still using WP:JR as an argument, which does not apply to things named for people. For example, there is an RM on this very page, from June, 2016, which you opened and commented on largely based on WP:JR. Editors took your word for it, assuming that you were correct, and all of the supporting editors ivoted using WP:JR as the basis for their decision. You weren't correct, although editors were led to believe that you were. Where are the other numerous discussions, and where on each of them (or on any of them) is it first made clear to commenting editors that WP:JR does not apply to things named for people. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see where you're getting this idea that WP:JR does not apply (contrary to the evidence in all the previous RM discussions where it did apply). Can you point it out at least? Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see the problem; you're looking at WP:JR/SR, a part of WP:Naming conventions (people), where in this edit the content of the MOS at WP:JR was copy-forked into the people-naming guideline. So yes, you're right, the people-naming guideline is not the relevant one. Look at the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You're right Dicklyon, the page I was looking at was the one linked by CookieMonster755, WP:JR and SR. at Naming conventions (people). Thanks for researching my links, and pointing that out. So I can see how editors would think it's reasonable that MOS:JR can still be at least argued to apply here. But having that guideline language at the naming conventions page throws a bit of a monkey wrench into it. MOS:JR applies to biographical articles, and since the Historical Park is a place named after a person rather than a person, it can also be argued that the naming conventions page would take precedence over the biographical guidelines, and in that case WP:JR still would not apply to this RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, it can be argued, but all the prior history of consensus discussions is against you on this. The fact that the no-comma-before-Jr style is expressed in a section on bios doesn't mean it's less applicable to names in other contexts. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

To respond to Randy's stuff:

• I didn't say anything about an "RfC above".
• Repeated assertion that MOS:JR somehow doesn't apply here when we all know – from previous RM experience – that it does won't change anything. That's just "proof by assertion".
• This should remain without the comma per WP:CONSISTENT policy. If you threw out MOS:JR, the page would still not move.
• Next, you're just misunderstanding what I wrote. "X is really an argument for Y not Z" has nothing to do with intent (I'm not a mind reader) but with whether X is an argument that pertains to Y or to Z. In this case, it's an argument about what MLK's "real name" is, which pertains to what the article about him should be titled, and is not an argument for how to name things that mention him after we've already determined what to title his article.
• Then you're trying to set up some kind of war between COMMONNAME and CONSISTENCY, on the false belief that COMMONNAME means "51%"; it does not, and is very clear about this: "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources".
• When I complain that some arguments being presented are a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT emotive claptrap, and you choose to include yours within that circle, that's on you not me, and you have no basis on which to claim offense. As for what I've left at your talk page (not about this in partiuclar, but about your involvement in style and titles discussions on Wikipedia generally, and the frequency with which you poison them with personalized aspersions and an explicitly stated mission to "correct" and "preserve" on a prescriptive traditionalism basis), I encourage anyone who cares to go read it.
• Government documents about this national historic site, which exists as such only because of those documents, are not independent sources. We already had the discussion of whether a significant majority of independent RS still use the comma in King's name and they do not.
• Furthermore, COMMONNAME is not even one of the WP:CRITERIA at all; it's the default name to pick to test against the criteria and see if they fit. The present name of this article fits all of the criteria; the one you want to use fails WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONCISE and also has WP:NATURAL problems, since mainstream English doesn't use the comma this way any longer; your preferred title is neither more or less recognizable or precise. There is thus no reason to abandon a five-star name for what we could call a two- or perhaps two-and-a-half-star name. Especially when consistency is the central issue – we should not set up a situation that inspires further pointless dispute over punctuation trivia. Whether you intend to relitigate MOS:JR indefinitely I cannot say (not psychic), but this would have the result of it, so who cares? "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The guideline says "most frequently used in English. That's 51%, and the official name used by the National Park Service should push that usage to a majority. You and others are still arguing WP:JR, which, I've opined and discussed and continue discussing below, has nothing to do with this page because it is a thing named after a person. And no, I have no intention, nor would keeping the comma on this page, to say WP:JR should go. It is settled for individuals. Yet it has nothing to do with things named for people, or for fictional names of films or other works of art. These are the exceptions to WP:JR. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the comma for reasons stated above. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support both the comma and "park". I'm not sold that the COMMONNAME is to omit the comma, and parks really are separate from people, so I wouldn't consider it Wikilawyering or an obscure exemption or anything to ignore WP guidelines for naming of people with commas in their name. SnowFire (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

COMMONNAME has nothing to do with the comma. The comma is a styling issue, not a name selection issue. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

CookieMonster above invoked COMMONNAME to dispute using a comma. I addressed my take on the styling issue above - it applies to people, not to parks. SnowFire (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So, you're going to ignore WP:CONSISTENCY policy, which is one of the actual WP:CRITERIA while COMMONNAME is not, because ... why? Spin us your WP:IAR case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Re first point, consistency with what? Real life is littered with examples of things named after people / places that do not match exactly. Nobody has made an affirmative case that the comma (in the Park) is omitted in common usage, so the weak "official name" wins by default. (If somehow there were subtopics - like Historical Park East, Historical Park Statue, etc. - then sure, they should all be consistent.)

Re your 2nd point on IAR, it is generally a safe assumption that if someone disagrees with you, it is not because they know that your interpretation of the guidelines is 100% correct but are just being perverse. SnowFire (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note It's not a good idea to leave the park part of the move hanging while we argue about commas, so I've performed that part of the move, leaving the first part at the status quo. Discussion can continue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  Generally better left for the closure, which is coming today anyway. Tt's not likely to arouse a fight in this particular case, but I've seen massive drama ensue when pages are moved in mid-RM. The closer would be smart enough to realize there's consensus for the "Park" thing and no consensus to re-add the comma.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• To summarize... The official name of the Park contains the comma. Since MOS:JR is listed in two guidelines, we should first look to the guideline which handles naming conventions of people. It says specifically (and in boldface) that the guidelines on the page do not cover things named after people. So the argument that the next place to look is to a biographical page which also contains the WP:JR guideline. But that page is about people, not places. From that logical viewpoint, it can be argued that there is no guideline about WP:JR and a thing named after a person. So it does not pertain to this RM. That it has been used by every opposing editor, and is being taken for granted, testifies to its persistence in the face of a well founded guideline argument that it doesn't apply here. Secondly, common name as it pertains to WP:Article titles, reads "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". That's why I was waiting for the National Park Service to make the name with one comma official, copying it directly from a piece of congressional legislation. This will likely be the name used in 51% of the sources, which "name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject". The official name, with the comma, passes all the criteria asked for in the guideline covering titles, and it does seem to have the consensus here. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  Randy, why do you insist on your position summary masquerading as a summary of the section. You already made two support sections above; is that not plenty? Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  Other editors are adding further information and clarifying, so please add their names to your above statement. I've seen many discussions, including this one, where comments by already participating editors are put forward, so I don't know why you are particularly concerned about my seemingly guideline-based summarization above. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  Your "to summarize" section is just a restatement of what you've already said in your support !vote, and indeed your "want to support" vote from earlier. It is not an objective summary of the debate as it stands, and in any case summarizing the debate should be left up to a closer, not to an involved party. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Removing or adding a Sr/Jr comma is not really a rename. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• The article was named "...National Historic Site" and the rename, including the comma, was for "...National Historical Park", which was changed by Sarek a couple of days ago because nobody objected to that part and probably because it was making Wikipedia look behind-the-times by not showing the new, but altered, name. So this RM was originally for a full rename. Changing part of it before the close in a good faith edit, and because Sarek did not add the comma which is included in the official name of the Historical Park, does seem, per your comment, to have changed the focus of the full RM and hopefully the closer and other reviewers will take that mid-discussion change into account. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2018 (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.

Wiki Education assignment: Honors English 250HV10

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 28 October 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: SandySweat04, Guster5357.

— Assignment last updated by Fursheep98 (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)