Wikipedia

Talk:USS Frank E. Petersen Jr./Archive 1

< Talk:USS Frank E. Petersen Jr.
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Mike Cline in topic Requested move 7 April 2016

Improper move

Latest comment: 8 years ago44 comments4 people in discussion

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;

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

Latest comment: 8 years ago34 comments7 people in discussion
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: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


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)
You make it sound you discovered some conspiracy. The guideline states the article should be internally consistent. I add 6 refs, but it turns out that one is different, so I change it to another, perfectly acceptable reliable source that maintains the consistency. Nothing wrong with that. You on the other hand, persistently edit-warring to swap the refs around, just so you can go "ah-ha! got ya!", is just more of you being disruptive and turning a simple stub into a mess. (pfft!... what else is new?) Yawn... anything else? - theWOLFchild 06:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether changing the comma style of refs is part of being consistent or not; maybe it's OK; I usually try to leave ref titles more literal. But you claimed the ref supported your position about the comma, and you removed a required comma in the process of adding a not-required comma, in an article that did not use the comma in its title, so your claim that you moved it for consistency is hard to understand. Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
No... you filling up discussion pages with nonsense is what makes them hard to understand. Calidum was right, you do "play dumb" to try and derail discussions. But there is no way you can misunderstand what I have said here. The article title originally included the comma. To keep the article consistent and support the comma, both per the guideline, I supplied refs that met those needs. It turns out one didn't. (perhaps I copied the wrong link? I probably had a half-dozen browsers opened. I dunno. - anyway, not a big deal) I changed the ref to one that was in line with the others. That's all. But I'll say it again;
  • The original title had the comma.
  • WP:JR says commas are an allowed style.
  • WP:MOS says you don't move pages to switch from an allowed style.
  • Your page move was contested.
  • WP:MOS says contested page moves go back to the original title.
That's all there is to it. Even if it turns out that down the road this ship is named without a comma, right now you are still in the wrong. And nothing justifies the fact that you repeatedly ignored BRD, page-move-warred, edit-warred, lied and gamed the system. Nice job. - theWOLFchild 07:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
MOS:JR doesn't say commas are an allowed style. It's says they're an allowed style when a BLP subject is particular about the comma being included, or where current sources overwhelmingly use the comma. Neither applies here. Whether page moves are contested or not has nothing to do with MOS, but WP:RM process, of opening formal RM discussions, which has already happened since we're commenting in it. MOS does not say "contested page moves go back to the original title". You're just randomly making stuff up now. The string "page move" doesn't appear in WP:MOS or WP:JR (where MOS:JR) lives, and WP:MOS#Article titles does not address the matter, nor does WP:AT policy. What you are probably thinking of is the WP:RM#Undiscussed moves procedure, by which admins will usually revert an undiscussed move that someone controverts. Sometimes, however, they will not, especially when a series of similar RMs show that the move was not in fact controversial, in which case they'll tell you to open an RM discussion about it. Since you already did, the entire "revert to status quo ante matter is moot. The outcome of the RM will determine what the name will be and there is no point to temporarily revertwarring in the interim.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@Tony1: - Any particular reason? - theWOLFchild 02:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Usage in the sources is inconsistent. Tony (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Tony1: I think you should look again. Of 7 total sources (3 ext, 4 ref) 5 of them use the comma. Of the 2 remaining, one is the original announcement, (which spells the guy's name wrong, necessitating additional refs) and the other one was added by Dicklyon (surprise, surpirse) well after, to support this nonsense. I had added another ref that also supported the comma use, but Dicklyon removed it (surprise, surprise). I didn't re-add because I grew tired of his edit-warring. But all of this is beside the point, The page needs to be technically moved, per the guidelines; 1) The original title had the comma. 2) WP:JR says commas are an allowed style. 3) WP:MOS says you don't move pages to switch from an allowed style. 4) The page move was contested. 5) WP:MOS says contested page moves go back to the original title.
It's pretty straight-forward. I'm not sure what you're opposing here. Just because you don't like commas is irrelevant. The guidelines say we can still use them. This is why I asked you if you had a particular reason to oppose, such as another guideline or policy that has yet to be mentioned. Thanks - theWOLFchild 08:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Wolf, if I removed a reference, please point it out and do add it back. I've added back one that you had originally added, though you had titled wrongly with a comma and removed it after I fixed it; the Marince Corps Times article, now ref 3. Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I see you undid that ref restoration. Care to explain? Is this not the ref you originally added? Is there any other ref you added that's currently missing? Did you remove it because it doesn't support your position about the comma? Are you doing exactly what you accused me of? Or am I just confused? Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
"Or am I just confused?" - Yes. - theWOLFchild 06:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Usage in RS is inconsistent, so the comma should not be used per WP:JR. RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:JR does not require "usage in RS be consistent", just that article's be internally consistent. - theWOLFchild 17:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
More specifically, WP:JR says "The comma can be used where a living subject's own preference or its use in current sources is clear and consistent." That's not the case here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Even more specifically, until very recently, it used to say; "Editors may use or omit a comma before Jr/Jr./Jnr or Sr/Sr./Snr (Martin Luther King, Jr.; George Formby Sr) so long as each article is internally consistent." But, it was re-written by... someone... to suit their own personal preferences. But the present form, (the crock of shit that it is), does not mandate the removal the comma here. In fact, there is no legitimate policy or guideline anywhere within Wikipedia that supports the compulsory removal of that comma. But, as clearly and repeatedly demonstrated, the guidelines do support the move to the original title. - theWOLFchild 21:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
No one said that removing the comma is "compulsory". That's a canard. The reason we're discussing it here is because we are trying to attain consensus on whether to remove it or not. In my case, I support adhering to the preference expressed in JR. Dicklyon did not "rewrite the guideline to suit his own preference". There was a community RfC held at the village pump, and that RfC came to the conclusion that the guideline should change. Please stop pulling these WP:ASPERSIONS out of thin air. RGloucester — ☎ 22:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
If you support the guideline, written as it is now, then you should be in support of moving the page back to it's original title with the comma. Per the guidelines; 1) The original title had the comma. 2) WP:JR says commas are an allowed style. 3) WP:MOS says you don't move pages to switch from an allowed style. 4) The page move was contested. 5) WP:MOS says contested page moves go back to the original title.
This shouldn't even be a debate, but despite wide-spread backlash from the community, numerous, lengthy discussions without clear consensus, multiple page moves being contested, multiple complaints being filed... Dicklyon still charges forth, removing. every. single. comma. he can find without any regard for guidelines or the desires of the community. Even if there truly is a "preference" to not add commas to new articles, nothing justifies Dicklyons efforts to eliminate from them project complately. There's just your little group, enabling him. - theWOLFchild 06:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since usage in RS is inconsistent. Thewolfchild's objection above, that a source should not be considered because it was added later, is un-wiki and senseless. We're supposed to add more sources, and much of the point of discussions like this is to dig up more of them, and hopefully use them for more than arguing over the title. Thewolfchild's additional objection above, that because the guideline recently changed we should ignore it, is also un-wiki and senseless. It changed in response to a widely-advertised Village Pump RfC, a followup to one that did not quite gain consensus about a year ago. It is standard operating procedure to re-test, with new information (and I provided a shipload of it) a not-quite-clear RfC matter after some time has passed, to see if a clearer consensus emerges, and then to implement one that does. There is no principle anywhere on WP for a "guideline probationary" period, where changes to guidelines are ignored for a month or 3 months or a year. That would be a ridiculous WP:BUREAUCRACY. Nothing is set in stone here, so if a change proves to be a bad idea, it will simply be undone when consensus agrees it was a bad idea (cf. the reversal of date auto-formatting and linking).

    Hold an RfC or mass RM on these ship names with "Jr." and "Sr.": Given that WP:COMMONNAME is not a style policy (it tells us what the name is - the "USS Frank E. Petersen Jr." versus the "HMS John Bigbooty" – however it is styled, not how to style it), and the RS are not consistent on how to style it anyway, we should actually use the WP:OFFICIALNAME; that is more pertinent in such a case, because these have official Navy proper names. These are akin to titles of published works; the proper name of the ship is a literal string, whether it's spelled correctly or styled in a modern way or not. See "Merchant Ship Names in the 13th–15th Centuries" (not an authoritative source, but fine for finding examples) [1]: The Anglo-Norman ship of the late 1200s named Seinte Cruz is in fact named Seinte Cruz for WP purposes, and should not be normalized to English Holy Cross or Modern French Sainte-Croix.
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Perhaps some people don't use commas anymore, but the United States Navy still does; Official photo of MV SSG Edward A. Carter, Jr. (T-AK 4544) Just sayin'... - theWOLFchild 13:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps some large majority of people don't use commas anymore. See web hits. If you're seriously proposing that we use photos as the standard, why did you revert my move of the USS Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. (DD-850), pictured here without a comma? Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
You can thank your good buddy SMcCandlish for the idea (do it during one of your many Skype sessions). He suggested going by "official names". We often use official photos to determine which medals an officer has, by looking at the ribbon board on his uniform, so I figured why not look directly at the ship. The Kennedy, Jr. was named over 70 years ago and has been decommissioned for over 40 years, but the Carter, Jr. is in active service with the Navy's MSC, which speaks to the current usage of commas in ship names by the Navy. Now I offer this as support for the original name of this page. If it turns out the Navy doesn't use the comma when they actually build the Petersen, Jr. in a few years, then the page can simply be moved to remove the comma then. But for now, the page needs to be moved back. You've said a few times now; "Gee, when I move a page, why don't people say something?" We are. We're contesting the move. We're not doing it for personal reasons, we've offered sourcing and guidelines in support of contesting the move. The point is, once the move is contested, the page needs to go back to it's original title. That's what WP:MOS says (at least, until one of you guys conveniently writes that out as well). If you're a supported of MOS, then you need to support this as well. The reason you got into so much trouble before for page-moves is because of this very type of behaviour. The comma doesn't have to be removed from every. single. title. at all costs. You need to let this go already. - theWOLFchild 21:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Since this ship doesn't exist yet, we have to go by paper sources, not your imagination of what might happen. It actually occurs to me that this page should perhaps just be WP:AFDed, per WP:CRYSTAL. Anyway, I think the stick is in Twc's hands. I've never seen such a contorted and desperate attempt to preserve a punctuation mark. We had an RfC. It concluded not to use these commas absent consistent usage of it in the sources. We don't have that here.

As for the Kennedy ship (and I'm the one who directed attention at that article to this RM – why didn't you? – I agree a photo of it is a piece of evidence for how its name should be styled. What does the actual navy paperwork on it today say? My book analogy still holds; multiple editions can have differently styled title pages. I'm not 100% certain what DL thinks about this (just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean there's an conspiracy, or that they even agree with each other). Until now, I've had no problem with the idea of the Kennedy ship's article having a comma in it if we can ascertain that the official Navy designation of the ship has one (or did have one the last time the Navy had anything to say about it). I suspect DL would prefer we just didn't use the comma at all, including for BLPs; I believe he's said as much several times. The more people rant and squabble about this, the more I feel he's right. You can thank yourself for inspiring me to change my mind on this, and if yet another RfC on the matter comes up, I'll support a single, no-comma style. The attempt to appease concerns like yours by allowing for exceptions if the sources support them has simply led to more WP:LAME WP:DRAMA. I feel like Chamberlain (not the basketball player).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think people these giant walls of text you keep posting? I started, but as lost interest pretty quickly. You can thank your buddy Dick for all for all this, not me. In the words of FDR, he started it. He page-move-warred and edit-warred and all the other nonsense. I've already said, clearly and repeatedly, if in fact there is no comma on the name of this ship, then I no problem changing the name of this article. I'll even move it myself.
But this isn't about this silly war on commas, this is about the guidelines. The guidelines stated that the comma was an expectable style and that pages don't get moved from one acceptable style to another. The guidelines further state that if the move is contested, and here it was, the page goes back to the original title. Now you can spout off about the Chicago Manual of Style, this so-called consensus you and DL claim to have, and accuse and insult me until your typing fingers fall off, (with apparent impunity), but nothing. changes. those. facts. You guys are ignoring the guidelines here, plain and simple. - theWOLFchild 10:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Guidelines do seem to be put aside or ignored for this, and Thewolfchild has made good points throughout. I've lost quite a bit of faith in closers actually reading the comments (see my added section at the close of Manifest destiny, it was read, studied, and closed in less than a minute) but I hope this one gets it right on the guideline. And I must admit I don't read all of the walls of text either, maybe less wall and more condensed information, thanks. Randy Kryn 14:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Randy, what guidelines do you mean? Did you see how this started? After I moved a new stub to agree with the preference expressed in WP:JR, Wolf reverted that move with edit summary "per WP:JR, comma is retained as per sources". That's false on several counts. First WP:JR doesn't say that. Second, the only source cited in the article at the time did not use a comma, nor does any source found since then. This was not a good move; that's why I took step to prevent it recurring, after which he resorted to doing cut-and-paste moves, which is about as anti-guideline as one can get. So who's ignoring guidelines here? Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
"So who's ignoring guidelines here?" - You are, clearly. Do you think it goes unnoticed that despite how many times I cite WP:MOS, re: contested page moves, you and SMc continue to deliberately ignore it? You can make this about the comma all you want, and even change WP:JR to suit your personal preferences, but you can't avoid the lead to WP:MOS and you can't change it. When a page move from an accepted style is contested, the page goes back to the original title. It's only because you (admittedly) gamed the system, (after your page-move-warring), that we have to go through this whole exercise, because you knew full well that the guideline didn't support your move.
That is why you are so desperately fighting against it and trying to distract from WP:MOS by going on and on (and on) about the comma. It's doesn't matter if the comma is "not preferred", nor does it matter if the comma wasn't in the first source, the comma is still an acceptable style. The page needs to be moved back. If at a later point it's definitively determined that the comma won't actually be used in the ship's name, then the page can easily be moved then. - theWOLFchild 21:56, 11 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Frank_E._Petersen_Jr./Archive_1&oldid=1076389348"