Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NHS, NHLD, NRHP vs. Protected Area designations[edit]

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

hall of fame[edit]

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

Commas: too many, or too few?[edit]

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

New consensus and guideline at WP:JR - default is no comma. Moving. ―Mandruss  15:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
And the claim that the comma is "official" is not supported by a look at the nps.gov page. Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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



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

Admin note: following discussino on my talk page at User talk:Amakuru#Comma fix in title, I have now reverted this to the version of the article that stood between 2009 and 2015, and which features two offsetting commas rather than one unbalanced one. The move request to a no comma version can still stand though. Pinging Dicklyon, Randy Kryn, Mandruss, Checkingfax, Malik Shabazz, and Tony1 who already voted so they're aware of this change to the status quo.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Understood. More than a little pointless while this RM is open, but whatever. Thanks for the ping. ―Mandruss  07:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as nom – per WP:JR and noting that the comma-free styling is among the styles in use, even in official sources such as this sign and this NPS web page. Also tripadvisor and National Park Foundation and Expedia and this book on National Parks (others use one or two commas; the law that established it used two, but that's not the preferred WP style). See also precedents at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. Day#Requested move 22 April 2016 and Talk:Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Library#Requested move 4 May 2016. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    The sign you linked to with the stylized commas-as-lines also has many photos above and below it. Hopefully the closer will look at those (and research this RM for a couple of hours, making a mental map of the data, before a decision is made). Randy Kryn 00:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    Yes we can stipulate that styles vary, on signs and other sources. So there's no problem going with WP's preferred style. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, this is the oddest one yet. The name of the place includes the comma, although maybe with another comma after Jr.: here is the direct National Historic site paperwork (commas included, but it does show a comma both before and after Jr.) and look at the 17th, 18th, and 19th items on this one, showing the National Park paperwork on the site (commas included). Then the fact that the name on the building includes the comma (see large photo - nobody has chiseled off the comma as yet - and surrounding text) as does the famous tomb of Martin Luther King, Jr. We are an encyclopedia. We report on "what is", and this site is assuredly named 'Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site' (from the get-go until today). And yes, importantly, it contains the man's commaized tomb, an international point of pilgrimage. Randy Kryn 23:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Sources do not clear the "clearly and consistently preferred" threshold specified in WP:JR. It's a high bar, and it's intended to be so. ―Mandruss  00:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    Again, we are an encyclopedia. A bar that is set at 'consistent' is no bar at all, I've seen people here use that term to mean that if a few sources lack a comma then they take it to mean that our encyclopedia should toss out all the sources, real life information, chiseled-in-stone data (literally), and common sense as well as common name, and shift our perspective to, again literally, misinform. Randy Kryn 00:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    Be careful which stone you invoke, Randy. Dicklyon (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    That stylized-comma replacement is interesting, but the building surrounding it has the comma along the name on the top of it. And then there is this sign on the stone wall of the place. Randy Kryn 00:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    Forget all the other reliable sources for the moment. Survey of treatment on the National Park Service's main web page: HTML page title: no comma. Content page title: no comma. Signage on Visitor Center, as shown in the photo: comma. Caption for the photo: comma. To see enough consistency to meet the threshold is clear cherry-picking, the unsupported claim that building signage, which is difficult to change, should be given more weight than web content, which is not. If NPS's current preference is for the comma, they would have reflected that consistently on their main web page for the site. It's obvious enough to me that they don't have that much of a preference at all, that you care a lot more about that comma than they do. They are also inconsistent with the period after Jr, showing that they see punctuation of the name as style elements that can vary depending on context and usage—not as the essential parts of the name that you so adamantly assert without foundation. ―Mandruss  01:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with no commas – per nom. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This one should have a few pings, and also alerts to our American History, Georgia, and other related projects. Mitchumch Neonorange Brucehartford, more to come. Randy Kryn 00:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. As I've written before, when used in text (as in this article's title or in the National Historic site paperwork (thanks Randy)), the abbreviation "Jr." should either have zero or two commas. The current name is just wrong. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Mandruss. Tony (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – As it stands at this moment, there are 15 places in the article where a single comma is used, and 5 with a double comma. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per new policies about JR and commas. This is normal work. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 21:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support without commas per MOS:JR, the RfC behind it, and the entirely consistent no-commas result in the Jr./Sr. RMs since the RfC. This is a routine, speediable move by this point. (As for the version with only one comma, that was just grammatically wrong, even in an era when the comma use was common in US English.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment for the closer Not understanding how people who "vote" on these things get so caught up with the Manual Of Style, rules and regs and guidelines that a few of them spend literally every day creating and tinkering with. Yet they seem to forget that this is not a newspaper. It's not a magazine. It's an encyclopedia. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to share encyclopedic knowledge with the world? Dr. King's name with the comma is all over this historic district, all over its formation history (not to mention King's gravestone), and is spread right across the top of the Visitors Center and the signage. Yet they want the closer to decide, in a landslide of the very very tiny percentage of Wikipedians who both know about RM's and bother to post on them, that the encyclopedia should give its readers the wrong information. If I'm the lone voice on this I still think I'm right. Closings aren't supposed to be done by counting heads, they should be done taking into account that we are an encyclopedia. This National Historic Site includes the comma in Dr. King's name. It's up to the closer to choose if we are going to literally tell readers and researchers that they can't trust their lying eyes, or, and wouldn't it be nice, if the closer said "enough is enough" and let this accurate title remain. Randy Kryn 1:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Randy, your attachment to a comma in Dr. King's name is remarkably intense. But many sources, including our National Park Service, don't agree with you on that, and freely change the styling in different contexts. There is no "wrong information" involved in these various stylings. The full range of stylings appears in encyclopedias, as you can see here (yes, even both one-comma versions along with two-commas and no-comma versions). Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
It isn't a 'styling', it is the real name of an iconic figure in world history. And the district where he lived, did his work, worshipped, and is buried, is named the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic District. It is the common name of the district. The paperwork and signage naming the district include the comma. When something physical is given a name, an actual place you can walk around in, explore, grab some lunch, buy a postcard, and visit a gravesite, should Wikipedia, as the world's premier encyclopedia, style it to fit a tight in-house box? And is there an n-gram on this, nobody has put one up yet. That would at least show a faded picture of how the district was defined in 2008 (I haven't figured out how to work the n-gram with commas within the searched-for term). Randy Kryn 12:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Books such as The Best Punctuation Book, Period treat is a styling issue, and contrast different styles; in particular the no-comma and two-comma styles (with MLK Jr. as their example), since the one-comma style is really a grammatical error. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Maybe a new closer on this one?[edit]

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

Actually Randy, I have no opinion at all on the Jr. question, and I don't believe I've ever voted support or oppose in any discussion on the topic. Correct me if I'm wrong. And my only involvement with this specific article was to move it back to the original title with the comma after it was initiall moved without discussion. I have moved a few other Jr articles in recent months, but only when they appear at WP:RMT, because those adhere to WP:JR and are therefore uncontroversial, and maybe one or two other closes of clear RM requests. This one is also a clear cut application of that guideline, given the weight of support and the arguments made, so respectfully again I will not be reversing what to me is a very obvious close. Take it to WP:MRV if you think there's something wrong with this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall a vote but I seem to recall a comment or two in favor of comma-less pages, although I may be wrong also. But your close here does show that you think there is a year-long consensus on this while, if you had followed it, editors who were for exceptions and grandfathering of pages (totally within the guidelines and closes) have been sort of bullied away, and even I have given up on saving the real names of other people, ships, etc. and have stuck to the King pages. The rest of the King pages seem to tilt towards the comma, and so if those are RM'ed I would hope that there can be a totally unbiased closer or even a team of closers (as in the Hillary Clinton close) who will give all sides an equal viewing (your close language here does seem to imply a bias, no?). Randy Kryn 23:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
"Bullied away" is your spin for "deferred to a consensus they strongly disagreed with". You might try it. One does not have to be convinced, only outnumbered, and you couldn't be more outnumbered. This applies even if you perceive abuses of process, such as the grandfathering issue, unless you care to take the question to a higher level for discussion. This is how Wikipedia works, and it astounds me that you have been around as long as you have without learning that. You are a textbook one-man crusade, and I implore you, once again, to stop. Or, if you like, take the whole issue to a max-public venue like VPP or ANI (or ArbCom) and we can all have it out once and for all. We shall call it Commagate. ―Mandruss  04:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, as someone who is a regular RM closer, I endorse Amakuru's decision here. I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint Randy, but I think it's clear that in this case at least there was a clear consensus to move. Jenks24 (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Jenks24, you're probably right on this one, although changing the real name of the place should be problematic and actually worrisome for an encyclopedia. Had asked for a different closer because of precedent for the next RM's on this subject, hopefully a closer who takes every piece of data into consideration. Mandruss may think consensus is counting noses ("one does not have to be convinced, only outnumbered"), so the energy of his "astonishment" at me not knowing that can be used to educate himself about consensus. And check out the RM discussion at Joseph Kennedy Sr. for a time when more editors than myself were involved in questioning the decision to interpret policies and guidelines to obtain a result (there was also a renaming of a ship which resulted in one of the vocal editors leaving these discussions). On this Historic District RM, the problem seems to have been the National Park Service's website, which contains mixed messages as to this comma. That doesn't exist at the King Memorial page which has been announced as possibly the next RM Dicklyon is considering, and which has an overabundance of comma-evidence. Still wondering what an n-gram on this Historic District page would show, does anyone know how to do an n-gram which includes a comma? Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to do an ngram that differentiates between versions with a comma and those without.[1]  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The guideline does not refer to predominance of reliable sources, but says "clearly and consistently preferred". This is a higher bar than is usually applied to Wikipedia content, and this has been pointed out to you countless times, to apparently deaf ears. You don't like that clause, so you are determined to ignore it. Given the sources we already have, no amount of n-grams supporting the comma would clear that threshold, so I'm lost as to why you're talking about n-grams.
Further, "consensus is not about numbers" does not mean that we can unilaterally declare a consensus void because we disagree with it. Again, if you disagree, take it to a higher level. If you don't, someone else will, and it probably won't be VPP. I think I've been very civil by Wikipedia standards, but I'm pretty close to exhausting my patience, and I don't think I'm the only one. ―Mandruss  13:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
? I'm not going to challenge this close further, simply because of that website mistake on the Park Service's part (not the stylized stone mentioned by the closer which is, arguably, a design while includes the comma and period made into artistic lines). Consensus is not counting noses, but about weighing all of the data presented, and that's why I asked for an n-gram which, in the past, has been a standard form of "evidence". And if you are close to exhausting your patience, maybe a Wikibreak? Why would you be impatient about an editor pointing out that the article for a named site where Dr. King is buried should include (which it does in the physical universe) the name on his tombstone? Let such things play out, please, without losing patience, and do read the page on consensus to see what it is and what it isn't. Several people who had been defending the use of commas also lost patience, but at people not going by the naming provisions of the guidelines, and left these discussions. Maybe the anti-King comma editors can stop at this one, because the others have even more evidence that the comma-included is the common name. Or we can just go with removing the Jr. altogether and use just Martin Luther King in the titles, which is also one of King's two common names. Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)