Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested speedy deletion March 2011[edit]

Re: {{hang on}}...

I understand the reasoning for speedy deletion, but I am in the process of expanding the page, I just added information about the route, an will add citations and photos in the next day. The MLK Ave deserves a page because of its important history as the cultural and economic center of River East, DC. Feel free to discuss this on my talk page, but please, add specific reasoning. It makes more sense to me to leave advice on how to improve a page with a warning, than simply a notification of deletion. Thedofc (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 01 July 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. As members of the Wikipedia community, we must continue to respect the community consensus, which has once again been seen here in this move request as it was seen at the Manual of Style. (non-admin closure)  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  04:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue → Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue – Per WP:JR we prefer no comma; and most books typically use no comma for this ave name. – Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as no one has yet been game to try and move the Martin Luther King, Jr. article, this will require a discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested technical request (permalink). Jenks24 (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping Dicklyon so he's aware of this. Jenks24 (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom – The only thing that could make this "potentially controversial" in light of all the recent precedents and RFC and MOS is Randy Kryn, who insists that MLK is special with respect to commas. But see the book link in the rationale above or this one; about 60% of books that mention this ave do so without a comma – so there's no impediment to following our own style which is to do similarly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – removing all commas per RfC and MoS. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Checkingfax. Tony (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Does not clear the consistency threshold specified in WP:JR. Agree that one lone crusading editor does not constitute a controversy in the RM sense. I would suggest to Jenks24 that, considering the history of this issue, including the comma is what is controversial. These should be moved without discussion and Randy Kryn, while bordering on disruption, would then be within the letter of the "law" to propose a move-back, which would almost certainly fail. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think I made the right decision. I'll note that I have started a full discussion for only one of the hundreds of Sr/Jr moves to go through RM/TR. And if any of you had been game to start a RM for the MLK article and got a consensus there it wouldn't have been necessary, but perhaps it's not as straightforward as you make out. Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I and others see little connection between the punctuation of the man's name and those of the library, the street, the historic site, and so on. The punctuation preferences come from different sources. We can't know what King would prefer today, with the general shift away from the comma, because he is not around to ask. He might prefer to keep the comma because that's what he was used to, or he might think, "Thank God Almighty, I am free at last from that blasted comma!" But we can know, for example, how the National Park Service feels about the comma in the name of the historical site. There is ample contemporary evidence that they do not see it as an essential part of the name. We see no need to be consistent across articles, so there has been no reason to address the main article first, and I think we have been saving it for last because it has the highest visibility. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • "We" have been "saving it for last"? An odd exposure of intent. All of these pages should follow that name until it is changed. And no, the Historic District is not unclear, it includes the comma. Have you been to it? Commas all over the place. It's the real name of a real place. Randy Kryn 14:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I, too, have been holding off on the main page, thinking that these pages with unbalalnced commas would be uncontroversial, especially after the recent precedents on the Day and Library. Probably Memorial next, as you say. I like Mandruss's previous position: not his current "punctuation preferences come from different sources" but rather the getting away from the preferences of others, which are mostly unknowable or unclear, and going with the preferences that we decided and expressed in our own manual of style. In any case, as I've said elsewhere, the only thing special about MLK Jr. compared to all the others is the extraordinary fight that Randy Kryn puts up to defend it. It might be easier to take that on when all the rest is settled down. On the current case, the Avenue, did you look at the books link? A clear majority drop the comma, as with other MLK-named streets. Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you think anyone has the time to "defend" every comma change? Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., Sammy Davis, Jr., Robert Kennedy, Jr. and many others should be kept with the comma, for historic and encyclopedic accuracy. Owing to your comment, that you've been chipping around the edges and not RM'ing the King page itself, my comment and request below to the closer to change back all of the pages until that page is resolved seems pertinent and fulfills in-wiki consistency. Randy Kryn 16:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and requests to the closer (who hopefully isn't just a head-counter, too many of those here), I'm alone again but, ah, folks, it's the real name of a real street that you can walk on, put up a business on, and point out to the kids and tell them the story of this man's life. The real name of the street contains the comma. And yes, the name of other places named after Dr. King contain the comma, including the Historic District in Atlanta where he is buried, with some here making it a crusade of sorts (see above "We have been saving it for last") to literally change Dr. King's name and remove it from this encyclopedia. I'd rather see his page and all of these names changed to simply 'Martin Luther King' than for the comma to be removed. The comma is part of the name, it creates a pause. If the main article for Dr. King includes the comma then all these pages should contain it. The historic district is a major move attempt, and I assume next the crowd of 'Support'ers will go after his Memorial in Washington D.C.. But none have gone to the main Wikipedia King page and made an RM request there. I ask the closer here to deny this request and to change back the other pages named for Dr. King until that is done and resolved (if not with the comma, hopefully with just the name 'Martin Luther King'). Randy Kryn 14:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per WP:JR. I have nothing but respect for Randy Kryn, but around "Jr.", commas come in even numbers -- zero or two -- never one. I think that's a rule of grammar that Martin Luther King, Jr., learned at a young age. Complying with the requirements of a style manual is something he probably didn't encounter until he had to write a college thesis, but I don't imagine he confronted it with resistance, nonviolent or otherwise. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Luther_King_Jr._Avenue&oldid=1202721786"