Talk:USS Frank E. Petersen Jr.

Improper move

See WP:CPMOVE if you did more edits that you want to merge after the improper cut-and-paste move that I reverted. Or just re-do it as one edit. The reason for the move is the style preference in WP:JR; please read it. I verified that this is not a case where sources require the comma. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You boldly moved the page. I reverted/moved it back. If you feel the page still need to be moved, then propose it on the talk page. Stop moving it already. Why do you need it moved so badly anyway? - ^theWOLFchild 15:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The moving was stopped when I edited the redirect to make it harder to move. Now you're just doing a content cut-and-paste, which is not how moving works. It's also odd that you copied my talk from your user talk page to this redirect talk page, but if that's where you want to talk, that's fine.

Did you look at WP:JR? Is there reason to think that this is an example of a name that's always done with a comma? Because the only ciited source (when I moved it) had no comma. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Also note that the article Frank E. Petersen has been without comma for the 8 years since the Jr. was added. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That's been fixed now too. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 15:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

So, you admit to gaming the system after page-move-warring. Good. Cut and pastes are to be avoided so that page histories remain intact. In this case, there were no histories. Just the edit of me creating the page and you moving it. I read WPJR, apparently you haven't. Just as you apparently haven't the read the half-dozen sources I added that support the comma. Just as you apparently didn't bother to take notice that every other US ship name with "Jr." has a comma. You made a mistake. Stop compounding it and Let it go already. - ^theWOLFchild 15:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the talk page to where the article is, and I've fully protected. Quit the edit warring and move warring guys. The comma is such a trivial issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ:I won't make any more moves until this is resolved. - ^theWOLFchild 15:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Full protection sounds like overkill. If you could try to advise Thewolfchild not to repeat the improper cut-and-paste move again, and give him a chance to make the improvements he made since starting that, we could see whether he gets it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You were edit warring equally, which is not the way to resolve the situation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Here I moved the pages back after your initial move. I explained why the comma remains. If you disagreed, you should've gone to the talk page then. But you didn't, you kept moving and blatantly ignoring my multiple requests for discussion, here, here and here, along with the 3 additional times I asked, that are now lost. Why is it you have such a strange adversity to talk pages? And commas? - ^theWOLFchild 15:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw where your move edit summary said "comma is retained as per sources". That was wrong, since the only cited source had no comma, so I moved it back, and editted the redirect so you would not do that again. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm going to try a history merge. Didn't realise that the other version had been developed independently ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Everything should now be up-to-date — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like you unprotected it, too? Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah. Seems like that happened when I moved the other version on top of this one! Well if the edit warring resumes I will reprotect. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ:, @Dicklyon: - "USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr." is the article, "USS Frank E. Petersen Jr." is the redirect. Per WP:JR, the comma remains in the name if supported by reliable sources. I have added a half-dozen sources in support of the comma. Also consider that every other USN ship with "Jr." in the name also has the comma;

• USS Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. (DD-850)
• USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr. (DDG-121)
• USS Harvey C. Barnum, Jr. (DDG-124)
• MV Cpl. Louis J. Hauge, Jr. (T-AK 3000)
• MV PFC James Anderson, Jr. (T-AK 3002)
• MV SSG Edward A. Carter, Jr. (T-AK 4544)

There is absolutely no reason to remove that comma, and certainly no reason to do it repeatedly, while blatantly ignoring the multiple requests I made to go to the talk page and discuss this. - ^theWOLFchild 15:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe I did go to your talk page, and this is where we are.

Thewolfchild, if you think this name would be a good example of one that should have a comma in it, in spite of sources being mixed, you can bring your opinion to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Implementing the "Jr." RfC and make a case. We're still looking for a good example of where a comma should be used. Dicklyon (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe you're lying. You didn't "go to my talk page" until these articles were locked. If you want the comma removed then you get consensus for it. I have supplied more than enough sound reasoning to retain it. Plus there is that pesky little thing called WP:BRD you keep forgetting. - ^theWOLFchild 15:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You have the chronology wrong, obviously, since you copied my talk paragraph to here before the page was locked. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it, but here's what I definitely have right;

• Once your page-move was reverted, you should have gone to the talk page. Surely you've heard of WP:BRD...? Instead, you continuously kept page-moving.
• I requested, no less than a half dozen times, that you go to the talk page and discuss this. You completely ignored that, and continued page-moving.
• As for the comma; per WP:JR: The comma can be used where ... its use in current sources is clear and consistent. Articles should be internally consistent in either use or omission of the commas.
• After I added five (5) references that all consistently use the comma in his name, you moved it yet again. That is pure WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.
• I have now shown you every ship we have listed, with "Jr." in the name, in US Naval history. They all have the comma. And you still insist on this one being removed? Don't you think this is kinda silly? I don't know what's driving you at this point, (pride? ego?) but policy doesn't support your position. The sources don't support your position. The existence of the other ships names don't support your position. Let it go and find some other punctuation to wage war on. - ^theWOLFchild 16:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Just about every point that you've listed above is incorrect; no need to exaggerate. Most particularly, you hallucinated the comma in at least of the refs you added, and added the comma to its title where it had none (see the Marine Corps Times ref). Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I fixed it (you had misplaced the comma to where you wished it). Dicklyon (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice try, but all the diffs speak for themselves, as do all your page moves and all my edit summaries requesting that you stop and discuss. And speaking of that, I've seem you quote BRD to others, is there some reason why you can't follow it yourself? As for the refs, every one of them has the comma. As do all the ships I noted.

Now tell me, Dick, am I "hallucinating" this? - 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. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

That is from the lead of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, our core guidelines for editing. Is there some reason why this doesn't apply to you? - ^theWOLFchild 17:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

When I pointed you at the relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Implementing the "Jr." RfC above, you responded with "I believe you're lying". And you haven't checked the article where you hallucinated the comma. Please try to move forward more constructively. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I said you were lying about. You claim you went to my talk page at my request, which we both know is not true. You only went there, much later, in hopes of mitigating any punishment you might receive for your actions. This is just more of your dog and pony show, deflecting and evading. How about answering some direct questions, for once?

• Why are you not abiding WP:MOS and WP:JR? Both clearly support leaving the title the way it was.
• Why do you feel WP:BRD doesn't apply to you? After you were reverted, you just kept warring instead discussing like I requested. - ^theWOLFchild 18:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple and start with those two. - ^theWOLFchild 18:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I am abiding by WP:JR; if you would joint the discussion that I've linked, you'd see. And note that Frank E. Petersen Jr.'s article has never had the comma. As for BRD, I reverted your revert because your revert edit summary was counter-factual, as I pointed out already. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

And I went to you talk page with this edit, my second edit this morning after I got up and found and started to fix your improper cut-and-paste move. Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Wolf, thanks for adding the FoxNews reference; it shows that you're willing to be fair and balanced (note that it doesn't have the comma before Jr., similar the other one you had hallucinated, with a comma after). I corrected the title there. Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that one replaced the Marine Corps Times one. I've put it back. More refs don't hurt (as long as you get the titles right). Dicklyon (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Implementing_the_.22Jr..22_RfC ...so what? There is no consensus there. Just you arguing, ad nauseum with everyone because, as usual, you must have your way. Is this what happened with your so-called "dashes meltdown"? (not my words). Was it this kind of behaviour that led to your indef block? I also see that only 3 short months ago, you accepted a standards offer to return to the community, conditions of which you are to be on good behaviour, no socking and refrain from making controversial page moves. And yet here you are, at it again.

WP:MOS still applies here, and to you. The page shouldn't have been moved in the first place, as WP:JR stipulates that having the comma is acceptable, as long as it's supported. You moved it anyway. WP:MOS further states that if the move is debated, the page goes back to the way you found it... which is with the comma. I created both pages (several actually) and the main page is "USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr." I then created USS Frank E. Petersen Jr. - USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr. (DDG-121) and DDG-121 - as redirects. Look at the history, it's all screwed up now because of you, but the template automatically noted in the edit summary of the edit that created this page confirms which came first, and which I, as the main contributor thus far, intended.

The guidelines are clear. All the other supporting items I presented only cement this. Just because you're on crusade against commas and you're arguing to death about it at some RfC, doesn't mean you're justified in moving this page. Now I suggest you agree to moving it back and we put this rest. Would you rather this goes to ANI? - ^theWOLFchild 19:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

When you created the article on 1 April and got to this version, you had the comma before Jr.; I understand that's an old traditional approach, and don't fault you for it. I don't expect people to be aware of Wikipedia's preference to not use commas there, as recently reaffirmed by the RFC and changes to WP:JR and various RM challenges to its applicability, which all reaffirm it. But in your original article, your only ref had no comma, and the linked article on the guy had no comma, so there's no reason to imagine you'd want a comma here. Essentially all modern news orgs, and most modern books, also don't use the comma, for this guy or others. As for consistency with a few other ships that don't even have articles in most caces, those would not be hard to update to conform with WP:JR's recommendations. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You want to play games and edit war, go right ahead. I've made my last edit to this page for now. - ^theWOLFchild 19:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Wolf, sorry about the late revert. I self-reverted it after reviewing just now; my apologies. I have no objection to your editing as long as you don't add back the comma, or add comma into ref titles that don't have them. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"...as long as you don't add back the comma..." - Who are you to dictate such a thing? Go back to your RfC, if you can get consensus to change the guidelines (such as WP:MOS and WP:JR - and not just changed it on your own), to state all these commas should be removed, then I'll abide that and let this be. But you have to stop disruptively changing content and article titles simply based on your personal preferences. - ^theWOLFchild 22:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Some perspective

There are now some 18,000 bytes of text on this page discussing a single comma. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: And you are largely responsible for it. You moved the pages to the wrong places and then protected them, deliberately ignoring WP:MOS and WP:JR. You then deliberately ignored my requests on your talk page to move them back. Now, thanks to your enabling, Dicklyon's behaviour continues on at other articles, despite no consensus bringing comma-gate to a close. Why bother being an admin if you're not going to act like one? - ^theWOLFchild 21:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Third-party observation

I'm not trying to get into the middle of this, but at the moment, it seems the number of sources pertaining to the ship, not the person, is pretty scarce. In fact, I only know of two in existence about the ship: the one listed in the article and a second one that I found on my own. As an impartial observer here, neither of the two use the comma when referring to the ship's name. If we disregard the debates at other articles for a moment, then it would seem pretty clear at this time that for this specific topic, the comma is not supported by sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Both those sources spell the guy's name wrong, but that's besides the point. It was an improper move in the first place; WP:JR permits the comma to remain and WP:MOS, in the very lead, states the page shouldn't be moved if the original title was acceptable, which it is per WP:JR. The page was moved, but the move was disputed, which WP:MOS also states the page should remain the way it was before the first contested move. For some reason, despite being an admin, User MSGJ has ignored all this, (and the multiple requests I posted to his talk page, despite actively editing elsewhere on the project). I'm simply asking the guidelines be followed until this is sorted out. - ^theWOLFchild 20:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think if we had at least one source listing the ship's correct name with a comma, then it would qualify under MOS guidelines, WP:V, and under WP:AT. However, as the article stands presently, there is no source about the ship supporting the comma, which is what all those guidelines and policies bank on. That's my only concern. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: The ship's contract and name have only just been announced. There will be plenty more reliable sources to come, and if it turns out that the comma shouldn't be there, then I'm fine with it's removal. But for now, we should be following WP:MOS... it is after all the very core of our editing guidelines, and this particular guideline is listed in the very lead. It's meant to curb this very type of disruption. (though I have no idea why Dicklyon feels he can ignore it, or why MSGJ is enabling him to do so). - ^theWOLFchild 21:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't the converse also be true? We could leave the article title without the comma until sources reflect a different consensus. Honestly, I don't have a strong preference either way. Just thought I'd lend some additional insight. I realize there have been several heated battles over this, and knowing that you two have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia, I hate to see so much time wasted on this. However, I completely understand that if we're going to hash it out, now's the time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: As noted in the ANI I posted, Dicklyon has waged a lengthy, ongoing and disruptive campaign (yes, against commas of all things. Apparently is was dashes before that) affecting numerous pages. And while I hope the community gets that sorted out, one way or the other, and soon, my concern here is about this page. It was moved improperly, and while it's a minor issue, it's still an issue. I created the article with the comma, and the only major contributions so far are the sources I added that supported both the content and the comma. The guidelines are clear, I just want them followed. - ^theWOLFchild 22:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2016

USS Frank E. Petersen Jr. → USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr. – This page was moved improperly and without consensus or support of WP:PG, in an effort to remove the comma preceding "Jr."
Per; WP:JR: 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 comma is supported by sources and the article is internally consistent, and therefore the move was contested.
Per; 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. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
The guidelines are clear, the comma is an acceptable style, therefore shouldn't have been removed. Once the move was contested, the article should've deferred back to the original title, which is with the comma in the name. The article needs to be moved. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 08:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - ^theWOLFchild 02:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, this should be an easy one once the information on the official name of the ship is presented. If it contains the comma, Wikipedia should keep it, if not, ship ahoy. Randy Kryn 21:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. But in the meantime, per WP:JR & WO:MOS, the page should retain the original title, meaning it needs to be moved back to it. Do you support or oppose this? - ^theWOLFchild 02:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – It's already easy, since the only two sources that mention the ship don't use the comma, and neither does the article on its namesake. If Thewolfchild finds a source with a comma, as he claimed several times he had, let him report it here. Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a stub for a newly-announced, not-yet-constructed ship... what part of that don't you get? When I created it, the first source may not have had the comma, but it also spelled his name wrong. I added the comma, per WP:CONSISTENCY, as every other US Naval ship in history with "Jr." in the name, has the comma. I then added a half-dozen more sources that all included the comma (that you forget to mention). But regardless, WP:JR still says the comma is acceptable and WP:MOS says if your move is contested, the page goes back to the original title. If anything, this is just a technical move. - ^theWOLFchild 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Like in this edit where you added a ref but moved the comma to make it look like it supported your position? That's what I meant when I said you hallucinated a comma (you repurposed one, making the result not just a different style, but also grammatically incorrect). The correct title was "Frank E. Petersen Jr., first black Marine aviator, dies". Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Tony (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tony1: - Any particular reason? - ^theWOLFchild 02:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)