Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Jr./Sr. double comma in lede

I'm curious how to use the double comma around the life range in the opening sentences of biographies. Example: "Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an ..." Should the latter comma for Jr. be before or after the parenthetical dates? Thanks for any guidance. Fdssdf (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The dates are not referring to the Jr., so should not be between the commas. Logically, should be "Martin Luther King, Jr., (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an ...". I think that it would be in the spirit of WP style to use punctuation logically, though you'll find it both ways in sources (along with the omission of the comma, which all style guides point out is an error). I have been fixing a few articles this way, and haven't encountered any pushback. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Right. The sentence structure is [Name], [more info including [birth/death dates] [is/was] [descriptive noun phrase(s) relating to notability] [additional clarification as needed]]. The birth date is squarely a part of the more info, not the name, so it goes after the comma. The only style guides anywhere that would drop the comma in such a construction are journalism/PR ones, which are entirely about maximum textual efficiency in tights spaces, including at the expense of clarity. It's impermissibly sloppy, confusing, and illogical to do "Martin Luther King, Jr. (b. ...), ...." clumping the birth/death material as part of the name, and still sloppy, confusing, and illogical to do "Martin Lutehr King, Jr. (b. ...) ...." without ever closing the comma construction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hyphenated-Americans (first sentence nationality descriptors)

Are there any guidelines about using nationality descriptors on the first sentence? I know that a lot of articles are moving away from the vague "German-American" and into the more precise "German-born American" or simply "German-born" with a follow up explanation in the Background section. Is this something we can agree on (should we add it to the MOS) or is there opposition? Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

For more context the original discussion was about the term "Canadian-American" on Anita Sarkeesian. The term itself is quite common, and is used when to describe plenty of notable people (e.g. Phil Hartman, Martin Short, Jim Carrey, Dan Aykroyd). It's use is usually appropriate when describing someone with strong ties to both countries. — Strongjam (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Forum shopping. User:Hamsterlopithecus is the only editor in the Sarkeesian talk discussion advocating such a change. Insufficient argument has been made that this is an issue more broad than this single example. BusterD (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Woah... good faith man... We were having the discussion on the Sarkeesian article and I came here to see if there was any rule about it in the MOS. Since there was no mention about it, I posed the question here in the talk page to get a general idea about how people feel about it. I then let people know in the Sarkeesian talk page that I had done so and asked if they would continue the discussion here as we were no longer talking about the subject of that article but of a more general MOS topic. Anyway, can we just start the discussion fresh and we can share our thoughts on the matter? Hopefully we can reach a consensus. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith, but this does smack of a solution searching for a problem. As was already explained at the talk page, ethnicity is generally deprecated in intros, but nationality is encouraged. In cases where someone has more than one nationality, there's no reason not to cover both of them. In some cases, it's appropriate to say "xxx-born American", or avoid nationality entirely (if only to avoid endless debates with nitpickers), but this isn't one of those cases. Here, the subject quite plainly identifies as Canadian-American and this is how sources represent her, which ought to settle the question.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidental to the actual debate, I can't think of any time that "Canadian-American" has been a term in use. "Italian-American", "Irish-American", sure. But not "Canadian-American". And this is a relevant topic beyond just Sarkeesian. Nationality is fairly important on many sports articles, and there have been edit wars from people trying to "claim" players for their countries - usually when said player gets a secondary citizenship long after they retire. Resolute 00:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Canadian-American" is quite a well established term. Strongjam just linked a number of Wikipedia articles that use it, and a few minutes of Google searching reveals a wide variety of external sources that use it as well.[1][2][3][4][5] That "Italian-American" and "Irish-American" are more common indicates only that there are more Italian Americans and Irish Americans than Canadian Americans.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I should have specified that I was thinking more from the Canadian perspective; we rarely hyphenate people in general, and almost never Canadian-American (i.e.: The Canadian Encyclopedia doesn't at all). Just as a nitpick though, there are more Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans because of the distinct cultural history and identity of the Irish and Italians that people either hold onto themselves or get 'stereotyped' by others. Canada and the US don't really have that, meaning a second generation Canadian of American parents or second generation American of Canadian parents will almost always simply call themselves Canadian or American. Resolute 16:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but again, we're not talking about ethnicity or heritage here. This article and the others listed above are people with dual nationalities, born in Canada and living and working in America. In Sarkeesian's case, she's lived and studied in both countries, and she uses the term "Canadian American" to identify herself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Reso brings up a good point about Hyphenated Americans: this terminology is rarely used, if at all, outside of the USA. The article on hyphenated americans describes it as a historically disparaging term to emphasize how non-american people were. And it seems like it may mean vastly different things for different people (and depending on the context). So why not just explain what is meant instead of putting a vague label? If they are born in Canada then we say that. If they live in a country, we say that. I think that in this case, terminology, in an attempt to simplify, creates unnecessary vagueness. And what's worse is two different readers understanding two different things but not realizing it. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comments are a bit all over the place. At any rate, it doesn't appear likely that there will be consensus for changing this article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• More of a "content consensus at the article" matter than a style one at present. Refer to sources. There probably is an underlying WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problem about the whole thing, but that's a policy problem not solely a style problem, as with the gender identity stuff. If someone wrote an article about me and called me a "Scottish American" I would laugh really hard (even though I am into Scottish history and even own a kilt, I don't think of myself in such terms). How does the subject identify? What sources apply what label and what are their potential biases? Do we notice that brown people get these labels more? That Jews get them pretty often but Christians don't? That people's whose surname-generating families from east of about maybe Germany get these labels a lot more than people of nominal Western European extraction? It's clearly a WP:SYSTEMICBIAS issue, but it won't be addressed, probably, at an MoS page. However, it could in theory be addressed at MOS:IDENTITY, perhaps with an instruction not to make up labels, or apply labels attested only in outlying sources, especially in absence of clear self-identification with it. That has come up repeatedly about Mariah Carey and people trying to label her "African American" on the basis of the racist "one drop rule" (one of them even said "she admitted she was part black in an interview", as if this was some kind of confession. I'd really like to see an end to this sort of pandering to 1940s thinking, but it would probably take a WP:VPPOL RfC to gain any traction on it, and I have other fish to fry. I think it would take an RfC because it's not solely a style matter yet; the purpose of guideline is to codify our consensus on best practices, not dictate what they should be (per WP:POLICY), and there clearly isn't a consensus on this yet, given the number of article that dwell, right in the first sentence, on aspects of subject's alleged ethnic or "racial" backgrounds. PS: I'm addressing the broader issue; I have little interest in the Canadian dispute above, which seems pretty pointless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Articles about siblings with names involving logography

What is the guideline for full names in lead sections of articles about multiple people, when those people 1) are siblings, and 2) hail from countries whose languages involve logography (e.g. East Asian countries)? I ask because I noticed that when such an article is about people from countries whose languages are non-logographic (e.g. Europe, the Americas), the full names are always written in the format "John, James and Jesse Smith", whereas in cases like ManaKana, the names are listed as if they're different surnames (i.e. "Mana Mikura (三倉茉奈) and Kana Mikura (三倉佳奈)"). MarqFJA87 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@MarqFJA87:Normally, use English conventions, this being English Wikipedia. But it depends on the nature of the construction. If they were Japanese-Americans who did not use Japanese names, it would simply be "Mana and Kana Mikura are...". If it were some other pairt of twins, it might go something like vs. Manny McUragh (also known as MC Rocket Monster) and Ken McUragh (a.k.a. Vampire Count K.) are..." (I'm making up details to illustrate a point, of course). Because of the intervening parenthetic constructions, I would keep the present wording of "Mana Mikura (三倉茉奈) and Kana Mikura (三倉佳奈)". It's informationally redundant, in a minor way, but it's syntactically and logically correct, because "三倉茉奈" does not translate as "Mana". WP:NOT#TWITTER; it is not necessary for WP to be as compressed as humanly possible at the expense of clarity.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Family

I wonder whether it would be appropriate to say something about describing family relationships in the MOS. It's normal in articles about politicians, it's necessary in articles about royalty, but it's unusual in articles about, say, business people and run-of-the-mill actors. A little advice on when to include it and what to say might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a content matter, not a style matter. Covered at WP:BLP.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

BLPNAME only appears to cover the question of naming those family members. It doesn't appear to address questions like "Bob had two children by his first marriage, one from his second, and now has 10 grandchildren". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• See WP:Handling trivia. Decent essay that might apply. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Full name, (Birthdate), known as (just first name and last name)

I have a question about the first mention of a person's name within a biographical article.

If a person is known as, and commonly billed as, "Jane Doe", and the convention in Wikipedia requires that the person's full name should be used in the article's very first sentence (for example, "Jane Marie Doe"), then is it really necessary to add "known as Jane Doe" after the full name is mentioned, just because simply "Jane Doe" is what the person is what she is commonly billed as, even though "Jane Doe" is her real name and not a pseudonym or stage name? For example:

"Jane Marie Doe (birthdate), known as Jane Doe, is an American actress."

"Jane Marie Doe (birthdate) is an American actress."

Jim856796 (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It's absolutely not necessary. The article title shows what a person is known as. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Mostly. It's only needed in cases where confusion could arise. Some examples: A) They were known more than one way in the sources and there could be any confusion on the part of the reader (actors, for example, are often credited under variant name spellings and abbreviations, and the average person is not always certain they're the same individuals). B( The name they're best known by bears little resemblance to their real one – if the article title is "DJ Phathead" and it begins "Mark Allen Johnson is ...", readers are apt to wonder if they've arrived at the wrong page if the lead does not also include a "best known as DJ Phathead" statement; but the problem does not arise if the common name is "Mark Johnson" and the article title is "Mark Johnson (musician)".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Survived by

Because of this discussion, I think this situation should be explained in the Tense section for guidance in future situations. For reference here's the Wiktionary definition Mlpearc (open channel) 19:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest rather that we avoid the "survived by" formulation entirely - it doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

We need clarity on this situation. If a deceased person has any living descendants. Do we write the deceased person is survived by his/her descendants? or was survived by his/her descendants? GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I concur with Nikkimaria. WP:NOT#OBITUARY. It's not encyclopedic writing. If their family members were pertinent enough to mention in the article, they should be mentioned before the part about the subject dying. If some of them died before the subject, that should be mentioned before the part about the subject dying (see, e.g. Roy Orbison). If it's a poorly developed stub article, the obituary-style text might linger around a bit, but I wouldn't agonize over it. It should be "were survived", because it might be a month, or 10 years, before someone updates the article again, and any of them could have died in the intervening time, so any "is survived by" wording will imply that they're all definitely alive right now, when that might not be true at all. It's OK for a newspaper to do that, because it's understood that the "present" of a newspaper is the day it was published and no more. The present on WP is interpreted as "actually right now, to the best of our editors' ability to keep up with the world".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This has become an issue of confusion in several articles of persons who have recently died. The general rule is that "is survived by" is often used in obituaries, which are contemporaneous with the death of the person, but "was survived by" is used in encyclopedic articles and other biographies. The verb "is/was" is singular and thus refers to the subject of the article in keeping with the rule of English that the verb form must agree in number with the subject (the sole exception being "you [singular] are/were"). The standard reference work of the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary, agrees with this usage (definition 1.2 of the word "survive") ["he was survived by..."]:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/survive

This is the correct usage in biographies of deceased persons and is further bolstered by the statement in 'WP:MOS/biographies#tense' that historical events of deceased persons must be in the past tense. What could be more historical than the death of the subject? Let's look at some examples: Would you say, "George Washington is survived by his wife, Martha"? In this case, obviously not. Or, to take an example within living memory: "John F. Kennedy is survived by his wife and two children." In this case, his daughter is still alive (she's currently the U.S. ambassador to Japan) but his wife and son are dead. So do we use "is" or "was"? Here's an even more recent example: "Elizabeth Taylor is survived by her three children." In this case, since none are notable for WP purposes, we simply do not know who is or is not alive. It would be an impossible task to follow the survivors of the tens of thousands of WP biographies of recently deceased persons by using "is" until at least one dies. Even then, using "is" does not clarify which survivors are dead or alive. But using "was" to refer to the deceased subject makes clear who the survivors were at the time of the subject's death (which can be easily obtained from contemporary obituaries) and is grammatically correct for an encyclopedia or other biography that is not reporting a current news event. The best practice is to follow WP:MOS and state historical events in the past tense ("he died on...she was survived by..."). Therefore, I propose adding to 'WP:MOS/biographies#tense' the following sentence: "In describing the survivors of deceased persons, 'was survived by' is the correct usage." Comments? American In Brazil (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have to agree with those who point to WP:NOT#OBITUARY... the best solution is to avoid using "survived by" entirely. Reorganize and Rephrase the information in a way that does not use those words. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with not using "survived by" is that it omits useful, relevant information. Nearly everyone has surviving family when they die. If not, the correct phrase would be: "He had no survivors." I agree with you that WP is not an obituary (which is written contemporaneously with the death of the subject), and also WP is not a newspaper (including current internet news items) WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. The item becomes historical within a day. Indeed, obituaries in weekly news magazines say "was survived by". So the simple (and grammatically correct) solution is just to say "was survived by...". American In Brazil (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to support "not using at all" as too many variables are involved to use is and was just don't sound right Mlpearc (open channel) 21:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, "was just don't sound right" just doesn't sound right. (In English, the third person singular, present tense, of all verbs always adds 's' or 'es', no exceptions.) What doesn't sound right about 'was'? It is the form used by the definitive authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary (see citation above). The past tense 'was' is the grammatically correct form. It is the form used in all biographies of deceased persons throughout the English-speaking world, except for obituaries which are contemporary with the subject's death (see biography.com or any weekly news magazine). 'Was' solves the many variables that arise with using 'is', as you correctly point out. 'Was survived by...' is correct in every respect and solves all problems - grammatical, historical, practical. American In Brazil (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify, first, I am, in no way, an English student, as you can tell (and at 57 no ambition to be either), "was survived by" doesn't sound right because I am not use to hearing the phrase that way. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Although you are "not use [sic] to hearing the phrase that way" (correct usage is 'used' because you are using the past participle as an adjective), this is a subjective judgement, not an objective one, and therefore is original research WP:OR. Objectivity is a reliable source WP:RS and the most reliable source for the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary (citation above). By the way, if you click on this link you will find the same usage for both British and American English. Examine biography.com or online editions of weekly news magazines such as Time or Newsweek or U.S. News & World Report to see how they treat recently deceased persons (in the past tense: "s/he was survived by..."). Only newspaper and online obituaries, written contemporaneously with the death of the subject, use the present 'is'. If this is the usage throughout the English-speaking world, why should it be different for WP? Further, if 'is' is the correct style, it would be necessary to review every one of the tens of thousands of WP biographies of deceased persons for correction. Are you volunteering for the job? As I said above, 'was' solves all problems - grammatical, historical, practical. American In Brazil (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Look, I just started the discussion, because it seemed like it needed to be started. I'm not trying to argue or defend anything in this thread. I apologize. you have taken the time to point out English lesson but, like I said "I'm not interested". Your time would be better spent directed at the other users in this discussion. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 02:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree that it is a needed discussion and I appreciate that you have taken the time to engage in it. I am not trying to be pedantic by correcting your English (although as a teacher of English to Portuguese speakers, that's my job), but rather to establish in the MoS the correct style for tense usage in biographies of deceased persons when referring to their survivors. I'm sure we can both agree that our conversation is in good faith and that we both wish to improve WP so that it continues to grow as an outstanding online resource. I hope we can get some other comments on this topic from those who care about correct English usage. American In Brazil (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have become dormant. Unless there are further comments, in 10 days I will add to MOS/Biographies#Tense the following: "In referring to survivors of deceased persons, correct usage is: 'S/he was survived by...'. If there were no survivors, say so." Any comments? American In Brazil (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be the opposite of a consensus for any such thing (except that "is", a daily newspaper style, is even worse than "was"). Salient quotes from the above discussion:

• I would suggest rather that we avoid the "survived by" formulation entirely - it doesn't seem very encyclopedic.... Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• WP:NOT#OBITUARY. It's not encyclopedic writing. If their family members were pertinent enough to mention in the article, they should be mentioned before the part about the subject dying. If some of them died before the subject, that should be mentioned before the part about the subject dying....  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• I have to agree with those who point to WP:NOT#OBITUARY... the best solution is to avoid using "survived by" entirely. Reorganize and Rephrase the information in a way that does not use those words. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Even the person who opened the thread wrote: I'm going to have to support "not using at all" as too many variables are involved.... I'm not trying to argue or defend anything in this thread.... like I said "I'm not interested".... Mlpearc (open channel) 02:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So, I'm pretty sure at least three or four of us would revert such an addition on the merits, and many others would on principle, since it didn't just fail to get consensus – consensus so far is clearly against it. While we can probably agree that "was" hypothetically is the correct usage for such a construction in a non-ephemeral publication, it's a moot point, since we don't want either construction. It's a bit like wanting to insert either shizzit or shiznit as the correct spelling of the slang minced oath, when we have no call to use either form here outside a direct quotation. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

As you can see I didn't do anything except put it out for further discussion, so let's discuss. The problem with leaving out "was survived by..." is that survivors are almost always mentioned in obituaries, usually in the present "is" because the obituary is contemporary with the death of the subject. But as Mlpearc correctly mentions, "is" is worse than "was" because it leads to all sorts of problems, as I previously pointed out with pertinent examples in the discussion above (George Washington, John F. Kennedy, Elizabeth Taylor). As has been mentioned, WP is not an obituary and is not a newspaper. Also, some deceased persons had notable family members who have a WP article, and a link to their names is not only appropriate but mandatory. Further, there are now tens of thousands of WP articles mentioning survivors of deceased subjects; shall we review them all for rewording? Any volunteers? And of course to leave out pertinent information that is mentioned in the sources (the obituaries) is ignoring what was important to the subjects during their lifetimes (his/her family). For all these reasons, I think that stating "was survived by..." is the best solution to the problem of using the correct verb tense to refer to the survivors of deceased persons. And if there were no survivors, to so state. American In Brazil (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

A "stage names and real names" discussion

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Stage names and real names related directly to this page and its advice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Spanish naming custom

Please see this discussion regarding Alejandro González Iñárritu (credited since 2014 as Alejandro G. Iñárritu). Lapadite (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Amending MOS:JR on comma usage

Please see this RfC at the village pump. RGloucester — ☎ 23:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Section merge

Propose merging Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Initials into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Names, and just leaving a cross-reference behind. It's frankly bizarre that we're covering a human naming matter outside the guideline for it, and buried in another one that is almost entirely about non-sentient things. (See also WT:MOS#Section merges for additional MoS cleanup merges).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look in this page's history in December 2013, the section was essentially a link back then. It has since been expanded. I don't know if there was discussion that resulted in that expansion. It may be worth perusing the history of this page and the talk page.

Have you considered placing a second section merge tag on WP:INITS? It seems to me that we have three sections that say roughly the same thing, which usually leads to problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Re: "in December 2013, the section was essentially a link ... It has since been expanded – Yeah, that's how WP:CONTENTFORKing tends to happen in guidelines. People don't bother to read the parent section, they just add stuff to the derived one in a "drive-by" manner, and often no one notices for a long time that it's redundant or divergent (we can probably forestall some of that by adding HTML comments that say something like "Please do not add advice to this section, but seek consensus to add it to the parent section at WP:Whatever#Foobar"). Periodically we have to merge and normalize. There hasn't been a concerted effort to do this (except for MOS:LIFE) since around 2012, so the cleanup is long overdue.

Re: WP:INITS – Not sure I detect a problem there; it's only addressing use of initials and middle names in the context of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DAB, so I'm not sure I see anything to merge out. It's not giving instructions on how to format initials, or other style-but-not-titles advice, that I noticed, but I have to get out the door to my pool league match, and maybe didn't read it very closely. Is there a specific part you'd merge? I'm actually all for merging all style material out of AT and NC pages to stop these constant confusions and (often imaginary) conflicts, so if you can devise a way to reduce the verbiage at WP:INITS, and at that entire NC page, I'd be supportive, and the thread at WT:AT indicates a lot of others would be too. I think that most of the style-masquerading-as-naming advice is actually in the topical NC pages, however, as well as in WP:AT itself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Changing "only if" to "only when"

In WP:BIRTHNAME, it states:

In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable prior to coming out. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly":

The use of "only if" here can be read to imply that it is optional to include the birthname when the person was notable prior to coming out. Logically, this should be "if and only if", since the birthname should be included if the person was notable prior to coming out. However, "if and only if" does not make for easy reading. I suggest changing to "only when", the sentence would read: "should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out". LK (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Nationality

MoS recommends that indication of nationality should be as follows: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable".

What about the - rather frequent - case of notable people that were citizens of some country that no longer exist (= absorbed by another one)?
Likewise (and even more frequently), what about those people that became famous as citizens of a city that was then part of country X (e.g. Morocco), but is now part of country Y (let's say Algeria)? Which nationality should prevail in that case?

In more general terms, is there anywhere any guideline to deal with such cases? Problem being that this may lead to edit wars every time some famous guy was a citizen of a place that "changed countries" over the centuries. And a guideline would really help... --Azurfrog (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As stipulated in the quote from the guideline, the country where the person was resident when they became notable is preferred. So, if the city was then in Morocco, the person would be considered Moroccan (barring other concerns) even if that particular city is now in Algeria. DrKay (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@DrKay: - hat @Azurfrog: is asking is what if the country no longer exists any more. You wouldn't use the modern location's term - Caesar was not Italian, he was Roman etc. GiantSnowman 18:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Complications mostly arise when the jurisdiction changed and they still lived there. Generally, just follow the sources. James Joyce is considered an Irish author, though technically born a British subject.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I am obviously glad and reassured that you both agree with me, though I am disappointed that you have chosen to phrase your concurring opinions as dissents. DrKay (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your (concurring) feedbacks. Problem is, whenever the place where the person was resident no longer exists as an independant entity, referring to sources won't help much, as they will themselves generally hesitate between some past nationality (if any) and present-day corresponding country.

Best (most tricky?) example I can think of could be Ahmad al-Tijani, who was born in Laghouat Province and became notable in Morocco. Now Laghouat is part of present-day Algeria, but was then totally independant, even from Ottoman Algeria. So sources differ, hesitating between Algeria, Ottoman Algeria, Laghouat (independant State), and Morocco (very rarely so, though). And according to the guideline here, it should be Morocco, insofar as this is where he became notable, but which does not reflect what little consensus there may be on this matter.

Any further thoughts, or reference to some other, more detailed guideline, would be most welcome. --Azurfrog (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarify: I meant follow the modern sources. Of course we're not going to use Victorian sources to "prove" that something we think of today at Turkish is 'really" Ottoman. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• This sounds more like a POV content dispute (asking which nationality is accurate) than a style dispute (asking how we should style that nationality). Suggest asking at the NPOV notice board. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  True enough: it takes a POV background to have this kind of dispute. I just wondered if there existed some general guidelines on the subject that could be specific enough to help settle the matter satisfactorily on a purely "technical", factual basis. Thanks for you help anyway. Azurfrog (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Implementing the "Jr." RfC

WP:VPP#RfC: Amending MOS:JR on comma usage has closed and people are already disputing how to implement it. Three points:

• Whether the closer bothered to mention the BLP matter or not, we clearly have to make an exception for self-identify of living bio subjects, per WP:BLP, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:ABOUTSELF, and MOS:IDENTITY, as various RfC respondents noted. We can interpret the consensus of any RfC or other discussion by looking at the actual discussion, not just by the wording of the close (per WP:BUREAUCRACY; closes are an optional formality, and many discussions do not have them, yet reach a consensus we can rely on).
• Whether old sources use the "." or not is irrelevant. The entire point of the RfC was that usage has changed (its poster can correct me if I'm wrong). Formerly the "." was common in American sources, now it no longer is (in any genre or register, from academic, to journalistic, to Web posts). The only sensible phrasing will refer to current (or modern, or whatever) sources, not all sources, or it's as if the RfC never happened, because the combined mass of all RS published before ca. 1995 will outnumber RS published since then, for generations.
• As a consequence of the above, what the preference was of a dead subject is no longer relevant; BLP concerns are not present, and the longer ago they died, the less relevant their own ABOUTSELF primary sourcing is, and the less relevant then-contemporary sources about them are, for a current-English-usage matter like this. By the same reasoning as "use the 'Jr.' spelling he used when we was alive", we'd be referring to Thomas Malory as Thomas Malleorre, and Julius Caesar as JVLIUS.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, there's not much to implement. Both styles (with comma and without) are still acceptable. If an article has one or the other, it should remain as is, as long as each article is consistent. This is what the main WP:MOS page tells us right up front: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable." Dohn joe (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"Both styles (with comma and without) are still acceptable" is not what the conclusion was, either in the discussion or in the closer's summary of it: "the discussion concludes that our MOS should express a preference toward not using commas". When MoS expresses "a preference toward" [sic] something, i.e. a preference for something, it says "use this, not that". The closer continues: "Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended"; that has nothing to do with MoS, but is up to venues like WP:GAN and WP:FAC if they want to push compliance at articles that were using the old style for a long time. I think we all know that eventually what MoS recommends is what gets done (either by people conscientiously complying, or gnomes fixing later), even if take 5 years to work its way through all the articles (often less; date delinking and species common name lowercasing only took about a year each, despite affecting many, many more articles). The rest of the close is just statement of the obvious (a guideline is a guideline, etc.), and opinional observation, and editorializing that a closer should avoid. We can determine from the rest of the discussion that another point was clear, like respecting BLP's preferences. There were only three opposers. The first asserted that sources show MLK is an exception because sources still mostly use the comma for him. I extensively proved that wrong; the only argument I got on that was from one of the supporters, for whom I did most of that proving. The second just made a sort of drive-by comment about WP:CREEP, but we already had a (wishy-washy) rule about "Jr.", and having a less wishy-washy one is not instruction creep, but actually reduces complication and conflict. The third claimed that American publications still favor the comma, and I disproved that too. So, there's really not a lot of room for doubt about any of this. Mandruss put it best: "the less time we spend debating whether to use the commas or not in a given article, the more time we have to spend on content. The common sense thing to do is to choose a house style and use it." We're on the way to doing that, just allowing for a BLP/IDENTITY/ABOUTSELF variance, as we would for just about anything as long as RS consistently go along with it (see, e.g. k.d. lang and Dadmau5). We could actually drop the BLP exception, because if you do that research, you find that the RS do not in fact go along with it; virtually all of them consistently apply their own house style, mostly without not with commas, to everyone, regardless of the subject's own preference. SMcCandlish 21:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No... A "preference" does not mean "do this, don't do that". It means "we recommend you to do this, but that is allowed". Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In a guideline giving advice, every single word of it is a preference, and MoS's standard operating procedure is to firmly advise one thing or another, not say "maybe", except in the rare case (and usually temporary, cf. the bird capitalization waffling that was in MOS:LIFE in 2013) that consensus cannot be established for anything other than to affirmatively state that consensus has not been established, (It really is rare; usually we're simply silent on the matter, and leave it up to editorial discretion; this is why we have no line-item about aesthetic vs. esthetic, indexes vs. indices, etc., etc., etc., nor any note that there's not consensus about such matters, or any note about them at all). There is nothing inconclusive about "the discussion concludes that our MOS should express a preference toward not using commas". Quite notably it was closed that way by an admin who actually opposed the consensus viewpoint, just as in the species common name lowercase RfC. So, please stop trying to re-legislate the already and recently closed proposal. It's pointless and redundant for MoS or any guideline to say anything like "we recommend you do this, but that is allowed". Every single line-item in MoS could equally have such disclaimer wording, since all guidelines are essentially optional, not being policies. The fact that we're recommending something but the recommendation can be chucked in favor of some alternative is implicit in what a guideline is. Despite a now-banned editor's frequent histrionic and prevaricating claims to have been "punished" at WP:ANI for not following MoS (it was actually for editwarring to revert others complying with MoS) no one is punished for entirely ignoring this guideline when they write here; we know most new editors don't know it (or any other policy or guideline) exists, and that many long-term editors ignore it and any other rules or "rules" people don't badger them into compliance with. Someone created bogus WP:UWT "warning" templates about MoS compliance failure, and I TfD'd them yesterday myself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Dohn, given the wide agreement on the preferred style among editors and among modern grammar and style guides (back to what we had preferred for several years until it got changed nearly a year ago), it seems odd that you want to interfere in implementation now. Nobody is suggesting that you have to adopt, use, or prefer this style; just ignore it, rather than interfering with those who want to move a few articles toward the preferred style. A year ago, I fixed a bunch of article to the no-comma style that the MOS said was preferred at that time; when you got it flipped to say no preference, you undid many of those, which seemed like an odd move given that the MOS said no preference when you did that. Now that the preference is clear again, there's even less reason for you to be interfering with those who want to clean up WP style. Of course, if I ever do move one where the person or their biographers consistently use the comma, I do want to hear about that; we need a good example, and I haven't been able to find one. Certainly it's not MLK Jr nor any of these guys whose pages you've moved recently. Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The example Neil Brown, Jr. for "someone who is living and whose official website tells us he uses that spelling" is not good here. The referenced official page has his name both with and without the comma on the same page (2 times with, 4 without). Like most people, he probably doesn't care if we omit the comma. Let's see if we can find someone who says they care, or at least someone who is consistent. Dicklyon (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not seeing the broad requirement to move all articles (eg Harry K. Daghlian Jr.) under this RfC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. MOS recommendations are not requirements. I moved that article since it made it more in agreeement with our recommended style, and because modern sources do it that way (e.g. this nonfiction book and this one and this one and this novel). But I don't understand why you put commas back into it. What's requiring or recommending that? Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, in this edit your summary seems to accuse me of "mass changes". As fas as I can tell, I've moved exactly only 4 articles to do away with the comma in the last week; is this too much for you? In what sense is this more than what's "allowed" by the MOS recommendation? Are any of these moves questionable in light of modern usage? Let me know. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talkpage, moving from one accepted style to another is against MOS and WP's ethos. From WP:MOS: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." WP:JR still explicitly allows for both styles. Moving/editing because of one's preference is also against Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan#Preferred_styles and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk#Optional_styles. Moreover, modern sources use the comma all the time. Dohn joe (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Moot point: "the discussion concludes that our MOS should express a preference toward not using commas". So, more than one style is not acceptable. Though the closer didn't note it, the discussion did, that we need to permit an exception for BLPs with a clearly proven preference for the commas. That's all. As I said to Blueboar above, I'm pretty sure you know better than to try to re-legislate an RfC that just close; that's forumshopping. If you actually want to challenge the close as invalid, or unclear, you now where WP:AN is. I'm confident that it would be upheld on validity grounds, and that if clarified it will be to not use vague and ungrammatical language like "express a preference toward", but simply "state a preference for". I'm of a mind to go file a clarification request myself simply to put an end to the present wave of wikilawyering.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Not moot at all. The close also clarifies that "Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended, and one should remember that the MOS is a guideline, not a policy." The page on Harry_K._Daghlian, Jr. could very well be grandfathered, and if there are people who think it is best to do so, then that seems to be the preferred style. On pages going forward it seems fair to remove the commas, but not on older pages which apparently are going to become a consistent disagreement, which is likely why the closer, in a wise close, put that line in. The Daghlian page, by the way, is quite an interesting read. Randy Kryn 3:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There was one guy who suggested grandfathering Good Articles and Featured Articles, but this is not about that. Older articles, nobody brought up, because that would be silly, sort of like saying we don't care about improving style at all. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That quote came from the close, and says that grandfathering older articles, feature articles, etc. is "recommended" (see Grandfather clause). Randy Kryn 13:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The closer's note that "Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended" is just an irrelevant restatement that one editor recommended something like that (nobody actually said anything about "older articles", that's just the closer's hallucination). I think we can ignore that; closer admitted his bias in the close ("based on that evidence I would have spoken out against the proposal" – indicating that he probably didn't actually look at the evidence, even – or if he did, and formed a negative opinion, why does he think he's still neutral enough to do this close of a potentially somewhat problematic RFC?). Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not irrelevant. The inclusion of "Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended, and one should remember that the MOS is a guideline, not a policy" is a major and directly stated part of the close. You might like it to be irrelevant, or, as you say, "I think we can ignore that" (??), yet grandfathering is a very real concept. Randy Kryn 23:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Closers don't get to invent new rules that don't reflect the actual consensus in the discussion. There is no provision, anywhere in policy at all, for any reason, for treating older articles as exempt from from guidelines simply by virtue of being old. WP does not work that way. The closest thing to any "grandfathering" that can happen under our editorial policy system is that independent processes like WP:GAN and WP:FAC can choose whether to require compliance with particular guidelines or not when it comes to handing out GA/FA badges. I've decided not to challenge Drmies's close at AN, and I've made peace with him, but there simply isn't any operable interpretation of that close that permits a magical "my article doesn't have to comply with guidelines because it's a day older than yours" WP:GAMING loophole.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Back to Neil Brown, Jr. This is not an example of "someone who is living and whose official website tells us he uses that spelling". This illustrates one reason we took out the personal preference exception a year ago: nobody has been able to find any evidence of a personal preference for what style should be used with respect to comma in their own names. If I'm wrong, I'm hoping someone will provide at least one example that we can use to sensibly illustrate why we again have such an exception. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• I too dismiss the personal preference argument... That is simply a variation of WP:Official name... However, I don't dismiss the WP:COMMONNAME argument. When the majority of sources that are independent of the subject present the name with a comma, so should we... As that is the most recognizable variation. Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that this comma will affect recognizability, and there's no other case where we turn over style decision for an outside vote. That would not be consistent with having a preferred wikipedia style. Dicklyon (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing the BLP thing if we don't think it's a real BLP matter. I argued for it as consistent with MOS:IDENTITY and WP:ABOUTSELF, and with our approach to stylized names, within reason, at MOS:TM that are both preferred by the subject and accepted by the vast majority of independent RS (e.g. it's Deadmau5 not "Deadmaus", but it's "Pink" (the singer) not "P!nk" despite her marketing efforts). I don't feel strongly about it. I was mostly trying to provide what Drmies wants to call a "grandfathering" path for subjects with a proven preference for the comma spelling, and I really don't feel strongly about it. There's no point in throwning a bone that's not wanted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Changed my mind; this relates too strongly to too many other naming conventions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

And I have no objection to keeping it if we can find a genuine example of a person with evidence of having a preference. Not just that they write or sign their name with the comma, but that they actually object to leaving it out, or state that they prefer it in, or something sort of explicit like that. I doubt we'll find it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't just consistent personal usage be sufficient? We don't require of Micheal Haley a statement by him that yes, he really, really does spell it that way and gets mad if people spell it Michael. I'm also thinking of other parallel cases, like Asian name order for Asians and Asian-hyphenateds who prefer it, e.g. the recent RM at Utada Hikaru, based on subject's consistent usage in their own materials, without any statement "By the way, don't spell my name 'Hikaru Utada'." (In fact, for a brief span in the 2000s, the singer actually did insist on that spelling in Western media, and then reversed herself, making the WP:COMMONNAME kind of hard to figure out. Anyway, I would just like to see us approach all these matters consistently. Either we respect that people determine their own names (k.d. lang, Jennifer 8. Lee, Genesis P-Orridge) or we don't. This also has implications for diacritics. The fact that Neil Brown, Jr. (or maybe it was another case I found, I forget) has been consistently using the comma spelling would seem to be good enough. If they're not, then it's not good enough, especially given that many of them are likely to change their preference on this over the next 1–10 years, as virtually all the remaining publishers abandon the comma.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

We respect those name styles based on consistent use in reliable sources, because we don't have spies to go see how they write their name, or to ask them how they prefer to see it in print. I agree that it's a potentially useful exception, but I'm going to remove the example name for now, since it's not a valid one. Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent RM discussions at Talk:Larry Mullen Jr.#Requested move 20 March 2016 and Talk:Desi Arnaz Jr.#Requested move 20 March 2016 seem to put an end to Dohn joe's objections based on claiming that both styles are still "acceptable". Yes? I have moved a few more articles, mostly racing drivers who seldom use the comma themselves or in news coverage of them, but if anyone sees a case among them that seems to over-reach and remove a common where there's evidence that it would really be preferred, please do bring it up and let's look at it. Still looking for a good example... Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I would look in categories of American and Canadian actors, singers, authors, etc., and look for living subjects under 40. That's how I scared up a few test cases in a few minutes. They're liable to have personal websites and other online media we can check, either directly managed by them or by their staff with direct input from the subject. Maybe even just googling "my name has a comma in it". Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've spent considerable time looking, with such strategies; I do find articles titled with comma where the ELs and sources have nothing but comma-free. And I notice that IMDB never uses commas (though I can't search deep enough to see if they make an exception for anyone; just like findagrave always uses comma; having a house style is a good thing). Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course both styles are still acceptable, not everyone objected or commented on the Arnez change, etc. If someone objects to a change in long-standing pages then the comma style has been grandfathered in. Randy Kryn 21:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"If somebody objects" might be a good reason to talk about it, but is not the threshold condition for keeping the non-preferred style, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

What's all this about grandfathering? Randy Kryn has advanced some theories about it at Talk:Robert_Downey_Jr.#Requested_move_04_April_2016 and at Talk:Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger,_Jr.#Requested_move_2_April_2016, but I must admit I do not get his point, and can't see why he'd want to grandfather a comma into the name of the one person who most exemplifies never using a comma, Robert Downey Jr. Any other ideas for when it would be a good idea to leave a comma? Is what we say in WP:JR not adequate? We'd still like to find a suitable example of a name that's usually done with a comma. Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

We may have found an example of a living person who (usually?) prefers the comma: RFK Jr. Please comment on this and the other Kennedy Jr and Sr titles at Talk:Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr.#Requested_move_6_April_2016. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Progress implementing WP:JR

A few categories have a lot of Jrs. and no commas now, like Category:Mexican male professional wrestlers. This one should have been easy; shouldn't even have been necessary, actually, since most of the articles had been made without commas in the first place, but someone had gone in and added them, thinking commas were standard (in Mexican wresters, comma-free is more standard than almost any other group I've seen). Some were still fixed from when I worked on them a year ago, and some had to be re-done thanks to some intervening comma enthusiasts. But now it's good.

Most categories have many fewer Jrs. Racing drivers such as Category:American Speed Association drivers and Category:20th-century American racing drivers have quite a few Jrs, and I've fixed a lot of those, but a few need work (i.e. either a technical move or an RM discussion). Most NASCAR-related sites and driver sites don't use commas, but most editors still don't know that, so it's some work. Politicians tend to have dynasties, too, so I've been doing some of those. Other than these areas, names with Jr. and Sr. are pretty sparsely spread.

I've moved an average of about 2 per day for the last month (higher in the last few days). Every now and then there's isolated pushback from an editor surprised to learn about WP:JR. That slows things down, but is part of making progress. So far, no RM or other action has found us a name for which there is a consensus to include a comma. I look at every name before moving it, to see if it's consistently done with comma in sources. None are, so far. Still looking...

By the way, Randy, I notice that MLK Jr. doesn't use a comma in his signature. I'm wondering still where people got the idea that he needs a comma. Another like that is Harry Connick, Jr.; about a half dozen of his album covers show his name without a comma, so it's obviously not a hangup that comes from him. Should we try an RM there? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That would make sense, yes. Tony (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• A few categories have a lot of Jrs. and no commas now - yeah, no kidding. You've been going around removing them all. - ^theWOLFchild 07:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus...?

@SMcCandlish, Dohn joe, Blueboar, Hawkeye7, Randy Kryn, and Tony1:
Dicklyon has repeatedly claimed that all the page-moves, the comma-removals, the re-writing of WP:JR of MOS:BLP, and all his... persistent... behaviour in repeatedly enforcing these actions is supported by a "broad consensus" at this discussion. From what I can see, only the 7 editors I have pinged here have participated in this discussion and the "broad consensus" isn't quite as clear as Dicklyon made it out to be. I propose that all the editors who participated here take part in a straw poll, indicating whether you "support" or "oppose" Dicklyon's actions; all the edits and page-moves to remove commas from articles when found preceding "Jr." or "Sr.", and any other actions in furtherance of these goals. Of course, I would like to see others participate as well, to achieve the "broadest consensus" possible. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 22:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Oppose - as proposer - ^theWOLFchild 22:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Can not comment... At least not without more information. My view has consistently been that we should adopt a similar standard to COMMONNAME when it comes to issues like this. Our usage should be based on source usage. This will mean that some names will use a comma before Jr. and others won't. What I don't know is whether Dick based his actions on source usage or not. If he did, then I support his actions... If not, then I don't support. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you are not part of this so-called "broad consensus". - ^theWOLFchild 00:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

When sources are mixed, I go with the recommendations of the MOS, as with caps, dashes, and other things where the MOS shows a preference. On the particular case that got Thewolfchild ticked off, the USS Frank E. Petersen Jr., there are only two known sources that mention the new name of this ship; neither uses a comma, but Thewolfchild asserts that those are "misspelled". Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"Asserts"...? They both spell his name as "Peterson". If you read the sources, as you claim, you should know that. (oops!) - ^theWOLFchild 00:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that clarification. Where you said misspelled before, I thought you meant by leaving out the comma. Sorry I misinterpreted you. So this leaves us with exactly zero sources for the name of the ship? Dicklyon (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, it is a stub for a newly announced, not-yet-constructed ship. What. part. of. that. don't. you. get? Prior to the announcement just a few days ago, there was no such thing as the "USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr.", so how many sources are you expecting? More will come in time. If indeed there is no comma, then the page can be moved back... then. For now, the guidelines support it remaining at the original title. - ^theWOLFchild 00:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines at WP:JR say to prefer without the comma. And the sources don't use commas (now the news has spread to at least 5 copies of the same misspelled comma-free name). And the article at Frank E. Petersen has never used commas (it has the Jr in the article, just not in the title). No guideline says to insert a comma where no source uses a comma, nor to turn over style decisions to the stub creator. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

However, Dick, the guidelines do say that commas can still be used, they say that pages should not be moved from one acceptable style to another, and they that when page-moves are contested, they go back to original title. Oh, and Dick, almost every article here was created by a "stub creator". - ^theWOLFchild 22:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – This page isn't really for complaining about people; let's talk process and guidelines instead. Thewolfchild didn't get a lot of traction at his ANI complaint, so he's trying here. His very unbalanced canvassing there did bring in a couple of dissenters, and his new ping is not much better. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You're the one that introduced this discussion to the ANI, claiming there was a "broad consensus" here to support your actions. As usual, that turned out be not quite the truth. Don't start attacking me just because you got caught in another lie. The only people I pinged were editors that already contributed here. So you're "canvassing" claim is just another falsehood. - ^theWOLFchild 00:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You missed about a dozen from the WP:VPP RFC, and at least one or two from this section. Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

One is not a "dozen". He's been added, but if I missed any other contributors to this discussion; Implementing the "Jr." RfC, then by all means, feel free to list them here. - ^theWOLFchild 00:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC).

The relevant RFC is now archived at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_125#RfC:_Amending_MOS:JR_on_comma_usage. You might want to balance your canvassing by inviting RGoucester, Mandruss, Masem, Graeme Bartlett, AgnosticAphid, Aoziwe, Checkingfax, Nyttend, Ironholds, Tony1, DGG, and Fdssdf; and maybe previous supporters of this idea in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies/2015_archive#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr., such as sroc, Herostratus, Atsme, FactStraight, and Collect. I can understand why you wouldn't, but then you shouldn't be canvassing just the dissenters, either, like you did at ANI. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Dicklyon's comma-removals, including the the page-moves. Reject the notion that when Wolfchild and Dicklyon fight over commas only one of them is at fault. Evidence, please regarding the claim that Dicklyon re-wrote WP:JR and MOS:BLP to support his position -- I want to see diffs. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm mainly trying to determine if there was already a consensus among the editors in the discussion above. I see you're not one, but thank you for participating. The sooner we have true consensus on this the better, (either way). Dicklyons contributions to WP:JR/MOS:BLP can be seen here. I'm not sure is you've completely grasped the entire situation, but it would take a lot of reading for that. For me. I believe Dicklyon made an improper page move (which the guidelines say he did). I quickly found out that he has made dozens and dozens (hundreds even?) of such moves and many more edits, resulting in numerous complaints and conflicts. He claimed there was a consensus to support these actions, but as it turns out, there isn't. One might think Dicklyon would stop his behaviour and allow for the situation to be sorted and a true consensus determined, but he has continued on anyway. He's not new this behaviour, just coming off a recent on page-move-ban and an indef block by way of standard offer. Like I said, there's a lot to this. Have a nice day. - ^theWOLFchild 01:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a hundred yet, but as I said above, "I've moved an average of about 2 per day for the last month (higher in the last few days)." There have been very few that attracted any pushback. Perhaps you'd like to list them and we can talk about those. Or find any that you think were improper. I don't think my quantity of editing is itself a problem, so be specific. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 

(edit conflict) Everyone is free to move pages that can be moved if they believe it will not be controversial and they have a cogent rationale for doing it. A couple of "never stop, never surrender" die-hards about keeping the comma, who keep recycling arguments that have already been refuted into the ground, and who keep playing the WP:IDHT game, forum-shopping the same "proof by assertion" in RM after RM – and getting nowhere at any of them because the refutations have not magically disappeared – does not constitute actual controversy, but tendentious battlegrounding. WP has thousands of editors, and they just do not believe that the commas are better. Consensus does not have to be unanimous. Massive tacit acceptance, and consistent explicit support at ongoing RMs, of Wikipedia using the style we all see when we read modern off-WP source material, is orders of magnitude more evidence of consensus that a few WP:IDONTLIKEIT-style dissenters are any kind of evidence that there's no consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Wolf, you speak about "broad consensus", which, of course, is the bedrock of most, if not all, Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, what is the threshold for when consensus goes from "local" (?) to "broad"? The requests for comment ping all the editors who want to be pinged about those topics, which, here, are about style rules. The initial RfC, in 2014, resulted in an impromptu tally, with seven editors participating. The RfC in February drew votes from 16 editors. In my mind, neither qualifies as "broad consensus", but what would, if not the editors who are pinged about style RfCs? This may speak to the idea that the subject at hand isn't interesting enough to draw support for its RfCs, but that is a corollary topic. I support Dicklyon's efforts because I am a proponent of the no-comma style. I wish to reproduce an argument from sroc from the 2014 RfC, which was echoed at the time by another editor, in lieu of my own (I hope sroc does not mind):

Why should a subject's consideration be taken into account on a question of style? Do you think other encyclopedias, newspapers and publications consult the subject's preferences? Making allowance for the subject's preference (if they have one) or a preponderance of sources (which likely use their own style rules regardless of the subject's views):

• is irrelevant, as the subject's style (or sources' styles) should not determine Wikipedia's style;
• needlessly takes up editors' time checking sources and debating preferences;
• can only lead to arguments over which style should apply in individual cases;
• makes the guideline more involved than it needs to be;
• lends to inconsistency if different subjects are formatted differently and discussed together, say, in a list of famous Americans that mentions "Sammy Davis, Jr." and "John F. Kennedy Jr.";
• leads to arguments amongst editors over whether a comma should also appear after the "Jr." (it most definitely should, although some editors find this hard to believe).

Option 2 is a bad idea. Option 1 is a simple solution that avoids all these issues. —sroc 💬 09:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if it seems like I'm re-litigating the issue here. Wolf, you are right that the manual of style allows multiple acceptable styles — there is no doubt. I just wish the comma would disappear. Hell, if it meant never wasting another second on this topic, I would reluctantly embrace the commas (both of them). Fdssdf (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fdssdf: Um... thanks for your reply, but it was Dicklyon who spoke of "broad consensus", not me. He claimed he already had broad consensus here in this discussion, to defend his page-move-warring, edit-warring and general disruptive behaviour. I looked here to verify that and found that it wasn't true. The discussion wasn't even closed, only 7 editors had participated and there was nothing close to consensus. Look, if you want to remove commas, that's one thing. But we have guidelines here; if your moving a page, simply to remove a comma and that page move is contested, you stop and discuss. You don't keep warring-on. And WP:MOS clearly states if the page move is contested, then the original title stays. Some of you anti-comma people are conveniently over-looking these facts. This comma nonsense has been going on for over a year. There needs to be a clear, widely-participated debate, with an equally clear consensus and a clearly written guideline. Until that happens, Dicklyon and Co. need to stop the disruptive behaviour, and the anti-comma faction need to stop cheering him. You're not doing the project any favours here. - ^theWOLFchild 06:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean for that to sound even remotely inflammatory (I'm not certain you perceived it as such), but labeling someone as a seeker of "broad consensus" is not a bad thing at all. Back to the topic: You said, "There needs to be a clear, widely-participated debate, with an equally clear consensus and a clearly written guideline." This was my point entirely: What qualifies as "broad consensus", if not the participation of the February RfC? I think this is what Dicklyon points to when he says there is a "broad consensus" — that is, broad enough given the audience who cares at all about minutiae of style. Aside from that, Wolf, just what type of Wiki venue exists that would capture a larger audience than an RfC? (I am genuinely curious if one exists.) Would it be something like Wiki-wide poll, as done for stewards and other high-level overseers? I would love that, but I don't think it would garner too much attention; likely, it probably would draw scorn from those who viewed it as too trivial for a major site-wide poll (if one exists). I don't know. However, I do agree that it will be more helpful once the MoS has an "X, not Y" statute, whichever style it favors. To your final point, "Dicklyon and Co." must feel the need to spur debate through BOLD edits and the BRD process, and it sure is working. Wolf, you say it's a detriment to the project, but I disagree, at least for now. As to the overall tone of this Jr./Sr. comma spat, in multiple venues, I don't think it's helpful. There needs to be more good will on both sides of the discussion because, after all, we're all in this together. Fdssdf (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Broad consensus" doesn't mean "873 editors voted for it", it means it was very broadly advertised in an RfC (Village Pump, with notices elsewhere, and it was on WP:CENT, too), and the consensus that emerged was clear (it was in fact much more clear than the supervoting closer made it out to be). Breadth is of the number of editor made aware of the discussion so they could comment on if it they wanted to it. It doesn't means diversity of opinions provided, or head-count of posts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I see. So you hold that "broad", here, represents the number of people alerted and not necessarily to the number of people who participate? I had not thought of it that way (correct me, if I misinterpreted your meaning). It's intriguing. Fdssdf (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss, Masem, Graeme Bartlett, Aoziwe, Checkingfax, Ironholds, and Sroc: – Thanks Fdssdf. Some of the other supporters of those RFCs have still not been notified by Thewolfchild who pinged the dissenters to here and to his thread about me at ANI. Here's a ping of some (only works for 7 at a time, I'm told). Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, stop your bullshit already. I only pinged the editors who participated in this discussion here, regardless of their opinion on the issue. You claimed there was consensus here, I asked the participants to verify their support or opposition, that's all. - ^theWOLFchild 06:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As the diff of mine that you linked shows, I said there is "broad consensus as expressed at WP:JR". That's the guideline page. The relevant discussions that established that broard consensus are the RFCs. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend, Agnosticaphid, DGG, Herostratus, Atsme, FactStraight, and Collect: might want to know, too. They could read the sections above for some context. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And who are you canvassing now? - ^theWOLFchild 06:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Support removal of the commas, in content and title, except where local consensus says otherwise. Any further debate should be on article talk pages, and specific to those articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: – That has started. Thewolfchild and his pinged friends have started to show up at places like Talk:Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr.#Requested_move_6_April_2016. There are actually some interesting questions in that one. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Who did I at the Joe Kennedy page? (and why is it you feel you need to continually lie?) You keep claiming you want to discuss this, but all you do is post nonsense. I'm just waiting to see if anyone is stupid enough to believe you. But keep going, it is entertaining... - ^theWOLFchild 06:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Calidum and Dohn joe showed up to oppose there shortly after you did. I didn't say you pinged them to there, just that you pinged them about such commas. Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ping anyone to the JPK, Sr. page and I didn't ping Calidum here. I only pinged Dohn jow here because he participated here. So, >bing!<, >bing!< ... that's the bell on the bullshit detector racking up a couple more of your lies. Is this all I can expect from you? - ^theWOLFchild 07:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say "here". You pinged Calidum to your AN/I complaint alleging a "war on commas". Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support – I have used the comma all my life but now see the light and the freedom not using a comma allows. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see the close as supporting removal: As Drmies said, "there is no consensus outside of Wikipedia". The only need we have is to for consistency within an article, and to make every form searchable. And I think to follow the preferences of living people--though I think most living people couldn't care less and accept whatever the editor chooses to do. We have real problems in WP, and this is not one of them. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

And yet this has grown into quite a significant problem... - ^theWOLFchild 10:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 

Except there clearly is a general consensus outside of Wikipedia, both in a general shift in usage (across dialects, genres, and registers), and in mainstream style guides, with few keep-the-comma holdouts, plus some observing that two styles exist without analyzing their currency, but the rest dropping it. The sourcing I did both before and during the RfC showed this clearly, whether the "voting closer" chose to acknowledge that or not. The community is not bound to accept the closer's assessment as holy writ, especially since the bulk his close is his own opinions about keeping the comma. Closes are a summarizing function, and we're free to read the actual discussion; consensus coalescing after an RfC (which exists as a straw poll of editor views, not a parliamentary bureaucracy process) is standard operating procedure and frequently moves beyond an RfC and its closer's impressions. Even if this were not true, and even if "here is no consensus outside of Wikipedia" were true, it wouldn't matter anyway. WP:POLICY is not subject to WP:CCPOL sourcing requirements of articles. External sources do not tell us what we are permitted to decide internally as Wikipedia's editors what is best for Wikipedia editorially. Virtually no style matters of any kind in English are universal across all sources on the topic (not even "sentences begin with a capital letter"), yet we have a style guide. WP consensus is formed internally, weighing relevant external sources (when they exist and are relevant), experience with what works and does not work well here, understanding what our readers needs are, and the considered views of the editors who bother to participate in asking and settling the question. Even if there were a 50/50 split in modern usage regarding "Jr."/"Sr." (there definitely is not), we'd still be free to pick one over the other, and we regularly do for various matters, to prevent longer-term, broader disputation. Even MOS:ENGVAR only applies when the choice between multiple styles is arbitrary and WP has no reason to prefer one over the other (not the case here), and ENGVAR wouldn't apply anyway, since the shift is international. Have you actually looked at the RMs about this? They're pretty close to flat-out snowballing for comma removal (except one involving some of the Kennedys, since it mingled deceased, BLPs with differing evidenced preferences, and a ship named after one of them, all of have to be assessed separately).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support the comma-removal cleanup. I'm the one who did the initial large pile of source research (for forthcoming use in a section in an article on commas in English), which someone else decided also happened to make the basis for a good MoS-related RfC. With more sources obtained over the last month-plus (fortunately mostly at used prices, and with Amazon Prime when not), I could triple that citation pile and it should still show exactly the same thing: 21st-century English is abandoning that comma rapidly, and everywhere, across all genres, dialects, and registers, while it is not quite totally extinct. It's rather like writing "Web site" instead of "website"; in 1996 that didn't look pedantic, now it does. This things change (toward increased simplicity) all the time. When's the last time you saw "rôle" for "role" or "cöoperate" for "cooperate", or "A.F.L.-C.I.O." for "AFL-CIO", or "S.C.U.B.A." or "SCUBA" for "scuba"?
  Oppose attempting to re-legislate the RfC right after it closes just because it didn't go the way you like. The turnout in the RfC was not enormous, despite being at WP:VPPOL for a long time, well-advertised, and attracting the ire of a few people who really, really, really love this comma. The numbers did not become a big editor festival for one obvious reason: Most editors just WP:DGAF about minutiae like this, especially when a pile of sources (missing from the 2015 RfC) removes all subjective doubt. The commas are error-prone and an impediment to reading. They are not "more correct", but now the clearly less accepted option in the real world, and no one but half a dozen editors is losing any sleep over that natural transition in the language. WP has no reason to continue pretending that the comma-laden and comma-free usages are equally acceptable. They're provably proven not.
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• View the idea that all commas be removed as a splendid example of "the hobgoblin ..." In short, if a person uses a comma in real life, use the comma, If they do not use a comma, don't use a comma. And on a scale of 1 to 10 in importance, this is slightly below zero. Really. Strunk insists on a comma still in its latest edition. Chicago MoS gave a choice starting in 1993, but still requires a comma before "Jr." when the last name is given first. Casagrande says to use the comma for "academic style". That position would state that since Wikipedia is an "academic" creature, that commas should be used. As near as I can determine, the change coincided with the prevalence of electronic media, and the fact that computer programmers will elide any characters they can elide (recalling connections at 110 baud). YK. <+g> Collect (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• We've done this already. The RfC with the greatest participation (around 40 editors) found - less than a year ago - that commas or no commas are both acceptable, as long as an article is internally consistent: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_119#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr.. Six editors shouldn't be able to overturn that recent rough consensus, and certainly can't claim that the latest RfC is a "broader" consensus than last year's. Dohn joe (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure why I got asked to come here, but since I did...Strong oppose any attempt to force anything on pages in general. The last thing we need is more rule-creep from MOS. Let editors at each page decide things, and don't attempt to force them to bend to your will. Remember that the number of people who come here is tiny compared to the general population: when there's wide discrepancy in usage, a few editors at an MOS talk page have no right to imagine that they can dictate everything to everyone else. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Collect, Dohn joe and Nyttend. Your answers are both enlightening and interesting. Not quite the same as what Dicklyon has been feeding everyone as of late... - ^theWOLFchild 14:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• How about a moratorium for a while -- a year, lets say -- on moving pages and rewriting article text? It's not really all that important an issue. Bikesheds, hobgoblins. There's so much to do here! Take a look at Wikipedia:Backlog, people, and dig in. We can meet back here in a year and cogitate together on the next step. Herostratus (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Why? A grand total of I think four editors making noise about this is not a big deal. There're about a dozen RMs running concurrently on this issue, and they're all landslides in favor of removing the comma, not on the basis of heated argument about "correct" English, but simply sourcing. Ergo, the community itself has no problem with this change, and has apparently been expecting it, based on current usage patterns in the real-world material they read. The last time there was anything like a MoS-related moratorium, it was over capitalization of common names of species, involved dozens of editors, canvassing, organized disruption of RfCs, threats of an editor strike, eight years of constant fighting, and an off-WP conflict about the real-world acceptance level of a proposed formal standard. There's nothing like that going on here. The only heat on this issue is coming from the same handful of individuals, recycling the same arguments no matter how many times they're refuted. They never bring anything new to the table, and don't have any objective facts to back them up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• I would suggest a very simple way to determine broader community consensus... An examination of RMs over time. First, Since the goal is to find out what the community consensus on these commas actually is, we should Temporarily remove WP:Jr from MOS completely (don't say anything on the issue one way or the other). For one year, all comma related page moves should be submitted to RM. Those for and against the commas can make their case, and let the community decide on an article by article basis (Yes, this will be repetitious for both sides... But we can live with that on a temporary basis). After a year, we should have enough actual OUTCOMES to assess community consensus, and write guidance that reflects that consensus. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar, I have repeatedly asked for people to examine my actual moves, and to say if any of them of are not good. In the very few cases where such examination has happened, the community consensus was that the moves were OK. Let's stop talking like I'm doing "mass moves" and "controversial moves" and when I'm not. If I'm doing too many, tell me what rate is OK. If some are controversial, point them out. Otherwise, it seems the processes are working, with broad consensus and a few anti-MOS dissenters. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Blueboar's proposal. Essentially, that's "taking the Village Pump on the road", which defeats the purpose of the Village Pump as a commons area to determine and document community consensus. If an editor chooses not to participate at VP and other public venues, they choose to accept whatever community consensuses are established there. These venues are not hard to find within a few months of starting, and at least that much experience is needed to become minimally competent to participate.
Oppose anything that serves to kick the can down the road, costing yet more editor time, about a fricking inconsequential punctuation character that has been chosen by a few as an ideological battleground. Enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

We have already had a number of RMs. In addition to the currently pending/recently closed ones, we have this multi-RM from December, which was well attended and closed with no consensus. Dohn joe (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Dohn, that big multi-RM on the racing drivers was back before the relevant RFC that changed WP:JR to again say that no comma is preferred (like it had said 2009–2015, but this was when it said both were OK). In spite of both being OK, it was 8–7 in favor of removing the commas, since in the racing business those commas are seldom used. So the "no consensus" close has little bearing on what the current consensus is, after the big RFC that again fixed WP:JR to favor no comma, relying on SMcC's huge pile of evidence from all modern style and grammar guides. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar, the wording we had in January already was no preference either way. Because we don't make moves based on whim – there's has to be a legit reason for the move – lack of a preference either way is not a basis for one. Historically, a small camp of editors hugely in favor of the comma got their way through WP:FAITACCOMPLI on the basis of false claims that its use was "standard" in "American English". While this has since been disproven, if MoS did not express a preference, there would be no basis to correct it at RM, not even WP:COMMONNAME (it is not a style policy). It's a moot point anyway; the RfC concluded with a consensus to favor removal of the comma; a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of half-a-dozen people at WT:MOSBIO can't overrule that and say "screw the RfC, there is no preference".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

the RfC concluded with a consensus to favor removal of the comma - which RfC was that again? - ^theWOLFchild 10:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The one everyone else understands.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I use the comma in my personal writing, but have no strong feelings about its use or non-use in Wikipedia prose or article titles, as long as both forms are searchable. Let the MOS as altered in the light of recent RfCs determine what to do about new articles, and be considered when a page move is considered anyway, but in my view wholesale page moves are disruptive, and the presence or absence of a comma, when the MOS says and practice demonstrates that both forms are acceptable, even if one is preferred, is not a sufficient reason for wholesale page moves. If such moves are to occur there should be clear consensus not just for the style rule but for the moves. DES ^(talk) 13:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but it makes zero sense to re-litigate this issue at every article that uses the comma. Community consensus has been established, and the local consensus burden should be on those who wish to deviate from the community consensus, not the other way around. The word "preferred" needs to mean something, procedurally; if not this, then what? Actually I'm very surprised to see this position from the editor who created the essay Wikipedia:Process is important back in aught 6. "Process is a fundamental tool for carrying out community consensus..." (emphasis mine) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• OK... Both sides in this round of debate are claiming that consensus supports their view, and does not support the view of there opponents. There have been so many discussions and RFCs that an outside observer can't make heads or tails of who is right. It would help if someone would list all the recent RFCs on the issue (with links). Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Closed May 2015 - contains links to 9 prior discussions. Some say this one represents community consensus because it had a higher turnout than the following RfC.

2. Closed March 2016 - Others say this one represents community consensus because consensus is not merely about numbers and a far stronger case was presented than in the above RfC.

I know of no other RfCs.

Yet others are not concerned with which RfC represents community consensus; they feel WP:IAR is all they need to use the commas, or not, depending on the personal preferences of those who show up in article talk. For them, community consensus really doesn't mean much at all. "Do I feel that the commas improve the encyclopedia? Yes, I do. Therefore IAR says I can (and should) use the commas. Full stop." (Wouldn't it be nice if, after 15 years, we could nail down some fundamental ground rules like this? Process should not be a matter of editor opinion.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr.Nawar Al-Saadi

The academic title Dr. in the title of the article Dr.Nawar Al-Saadi is incorrect, and it should be Nawar Al-Saadi. Am I correct in this statement? If so, it should be mentioned in this article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You are correct per WP:DOCTOR. Plus there's a space missing. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Post-RfC cleanup of MOS:JR

MOS:JR reads:

Omission of the comma before Jr./Jr/Jnr or Sr./Sr/Snr is preferred. The comma can be used where a living subject's own preference or its use in current sources is clear and consistent. Articles should be internally consistent in either use or omission of the commas.

The presence of Articles should be internally consistent in either use or omission of the commas is directly self-contradictory, and it has to come out. We cannot remove all commas from all Jr./Sr. names in a article on the basis that one doesn't use it, if the "a living subject's own preference or its use in current sources is clear and consistent" criteria apply to someone else mentioned in the article. Likewise, we can't wrongly add commas to the names of those who don't use them and for whom sources do not support using them, on nothing but the basis that the article elsewhere mentions someone for whom that condition is actually true. Either result would be pursuit of typographic consistency to the point of insanity.

I removed the contradictory "internally consistent" sentence, but someone who has been pursuing disputes with me across a variety of topics, from punctuation to what makes a good RfA candidate, reverted it and told me to "go get consensus". Well, okay; WP:FILIBUSTERing doesn't really faze me.

Is there any rational objection to removing the self-contradictory "should be internally consistent" instruction with which our editors cannot actually comply?

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic venting

Thank goodness you bolded that entire sentence, else we would never have noticed it! - theWOLFchild 23:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC) It's standard operating procedure to boldface the RfC question or actual proposal when something is put up for discussion with a fair amount of explanatory material. Was there something else you wanted to uncivilly rant about for no reason, or did you perhaps want to go read WP:BATTLEGROUND, and try to think of something more constructive to do?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I see no problem... Since we can use piped links, a name can appear with a comma in one article, and without a comma in a different article. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Blueboar and disagree with SMcCandlish here. Piped links allow internal consistency on this matter, and within-article consistency is a virtue, although not an overriding one. DES ^(talk) 13:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not at all a virtue when it forces changing names directly against the very rationale for any of the names being variant from the preferred default to begin with, and against the sources! That's backwards reasoning. It's exactly the same thing as saying "a) We should hyphenate compound adjectives, but b) with the sole exception of not doing so in the title of a published work that doesn't do it (e.g. "The Long Awaited Stranger"); however c) in any article in which there is such a title, remove hyphens from every single compound modifier, despite this being against the majority of reliable sources on English-language writing norms." We would never do that in a million years, so why on earth would we do something like that in this case? Shall we next say that in any article in which "iPod" or "Deadmau5" appears that all wild and wacky trademark stylization must be accepted without question? I think you're forgetting that the rationale for allowing an occasional exception for comma-Jr. was for the rare case that it's nearly universally applied to (and used by) a specific individual.

    If we were to really value paragraph-by-paragraph consistency above all else, then we would eliminate that exception, and also eliminate various parallel exceptions like for trademarks beginning with lowercase, names with number-for-letter substitutions, and other oddities that we accept when the sources tell us everyone else does for specific instances (exactly as we are for comma-Jr.). We can't have it both ways. Either we're allowing flexibility to follow the sources, or we're rigidly imposing a house style for absolute consistency. We can't make it rigid when editor A is going to pitch a fit when it's not consistent enough, then make it flexible when editor B is going to fight forever because they can't get the variance they want. That way lies never-ending, tendentious, style-warring madness, like piping [[Deadmau5|Deadmaus]] and squabbling about that in a zillion article-by-article disputes. As always, we need a consistent rule that is a guideline not a law, and allows for exceptions that RS tell us are exceptions, not for whim-based exceptions, and is otherwise followed as a best practice and is reliable upon in RfCs, RMs, GAN, FAC, etc. Otherwise we would not have developed a style manual at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• DES, you wrote: "within-article consistency is a virtue, although not an overriding one" (my italics). Are you sure? Take a look at the start of the MOS: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article". It is a governing feature of so much of our stylistic choices. Tony (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

And yet SMc seeks to remove the very same premise from WP:JR, just a few paragraphs down... - ^theWOLFchild 14:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

My view is that within-article consistency is indeed a virtue, but there may be other reasons that override it in specific cases. SMcCandlish argues above that this is such a case. He may be correct. His arguments in his reply to me are more through, and to me more persuasive, than his original reductio-ad-absurdum argument, which I thought was unpersuasive. I don't think that the presence or absence of the comma in such name is a really vital matter, I wouldn't have objected to guidance that said "Do whatever you like, as long as you don't edit-war and particularly don't page-move war over it". Nor would I object to establishing a single house style on this issue, one way or the other. DES ^(talk) 16:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree there's a potential contradiction here. If we make an article that's partly commaless, but we refer to a name that we agree should use a comma, it's not obvious what this provision suggests we do. However, I'm not inclined to argue about it until we have a definite case to discuss. We don't even have a single example yet of where the comma would be preferred, or an article where doing something about that would cause an inconsistency. When we have one, we can talk about how to fix it, and document the decision. Dicklyon (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the latest change of position of DES as stated above, I'll go along and favor dealing with this in the way that SMcCandlish proposed, which is to remove the extra statement of consistency that seems to override the exception of including a comma when justified. Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is the even more overriding if not-spelled-out principle of use the style that is appropriate for the contextual item in question. We would not apply the general principle to be consistent within the article to force the capitalization of k.d. lang, just because Billy Bragg is capitalized in the same paragraph, after agonizingly coming to the conclusion that k. d. lang is a rare special exception – its own micro-context. Way more to the point, we would never, ever say "if you're going to use 'k.d. lang', then in the same article you must use 'billy bragg', and 'wisconsin' and the lord of the rings. I really don't think it's a reductio ad absurdum; it's a directly parallel case. If we're generalizing from the IDENTITY and ABOUTSELF principle that if someone says they're "k.d. lang" or "Deadmau5" or that their product is an "iPod" – or their name is darned well "..., Jr." with a comma – and the real world goes along with them, then these are all micro-contextual exceptions that don't affect the style of surrounding content and are not overridden by it, either. Maybe we should say something like that specifically toward the top of MOS. It might actually forestall a lot of pointless future debates over such trivia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I made an edit to the consistency-within-article sentence that I think captures the intent. Please review. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course you did. Heaven forbid you actually wait until the community has discussed how a guideline should be written and then have any changes implemented by consensus.
sigh... Just another day here at Dickipedia... - ^theWOLFchild 23:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It's entirely normal to try implementing something and seeing if it sticks, if the problem is clear and the solution is simple. This is a wiki not a government agency, after all. How many more snide, baiting comments should we expect from you on this page today? Two back-to-back seems like more than enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the irony (is that number 3?) It's one thing to "try implementing something"... that's what WP:BOLD is about. But the way you guys persistently try to cram your own personal preferences down everyone's throat, with the gaming of the system, the bah-zillion page moves, the edit-warring, the disingenuous and misleading comments, the constant re-writing of guidelines to suit your purposes, the giant walls of text on every discussion to steer it off the rails or simply bore people into submission... that is not collaboration. And it's no way to build and maintain an encyclopaedia. - ^theWOLFchild 06:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Projection.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd actually missed this, but here's a superb example of why this sentence has to go: See thread at Talk:USS Frank E. Petersen Jr.#Requested move 7 April 2016 for <ahem> someone in this discussion WP:GAMING the wording here as an excuse to falsify the titles of sources to look like they're using the comma syntax when they're not, as a really WP:LAME attempt support an RM to move the page title to have a comma in it. Things like this are why it is important we do not create loopholes in WP:P&G pages, and do close them swiftly and firmly when they're found.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh the hypocrisy (is that number 4?) This whole comma debacle has been going on for over a year, with multiple RfCs, RM-discussions, ANIs, debates and complaints with still no consensus in sight and it has your mucky paw prints all over it. You've had your say, ad nauseum, and what you want and why you want it is clear, but the way you're going about is disruptive. What would be best for the project is if you guys took a step back and allowed the community to come to an organic resolution on this by consensus, without your constant interference. Failing that, then ArbCom can always step in and sort it out. Don't think that you're making anything better here with all this, because you're not. - ^theWOLFchild 06:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Read: "I got caught falsifying sourcing to try to WP:WIN a WP:LAME editwar, so after numerous blocks and warnings for editwarring and incivility, I'm going to hand-wave with unsupported aspersion-casting and personal attacks, and suggest going to ArbCom, who would remove me from the project indefinitely." Whatever you say, man.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Projection. - ^theWOLFchild 09:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)