Talk:Comma

In English: Commas used with "Jr[.]" and "Sr[.]"
I've done one of my huge sourcing runs on this question, which I will provide in organized blocks, below. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Since you didn't say, and it may not be obvious to everyone reading here, the commas you are referring to are the ones often (traditionally?) used before Jr. and Sr., and, in the context of continuing sentences, also the corresponding commas after. Thank you for doing this.  Wikipedia articles are completely full of the before but not after usage, a common error according to many sources, and the sort of error that has motivated the modern preference for dropping the commas altogether.  Some of these sources have been discussed before, but having them all rounded up this way is a great service. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Style manuals against the comma:

The two leading academic publishing style guides in the world do not use the comma.
 * New Hart's Rules (in two editions, revisions of the Oxford Style Manual and Oxford Manual of Style, in turn revising the classic Hart's Rules) recommends no comma, and labels the comma an American practice (p. 109 in latest ed., p. 103 in 2005 ed.).
 * The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed. (2010); Chicago U. Press; ISBN 978-0-226-10420-1. At "Punctuation: 'Jr.,' 'Sr.,' and the like" &sect; 6.47, pp. 322–323) no longer advises comma usage: "Commas are not required around Jr. and Sr., and are they are never used to set off II, III, and the like when these are used as part of a name." This style guide is followed by most American and many Canadian journal and non-fiction book publishers, and is probably the most influential academic/formal style guide in the world.
 * Also dropping the comma are:
 * AP Stylebook, which overwhelmingly dominates North American news publishing, and is surely the most influential journalism style guide worldwide, has also abandoned the comma, as has the UPI Stylebook (according to Garner [see below], who cites it).
 * So has even the excessively stodgy New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (p. 287).
 * The Elements of Style (Strunk & White, US), all editions since the 1979 3rd edition,
 * The Copyeditor's Handbook (p. 152),
 * The Guardian and Observer style guide (&sect; "junior"; UK),
 * The Times & The Sunday Times Style Guide (&sect; "junior"; UK),
 * AMA [medical] Manual of Style(p. 457),
 * the American Management Association AMA [management] Handbook of Business Writing;
 * The Wall Street Journal Essential Guide to Business Style and Usage (p. 129; US, and dating back to 2002), explicitly advise no-comma style, and
 * The Los Angeles Times Stylebook (p. 7) was doing so at least as early as 1981.
 * Fowler's (ed. Burchfield, UK; e.g. p. 280, &sect; "fact"),
 * The McGraw-Hill Handbook of English Grammar and Usage (1st ed., p. 282), and
 * A Canadian Writer's Reference (p. 307) use it without the comma, without stating a rule.
 * Garner's Modern American Usage (p. 556) (and his shorter The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style, p. 201) side with no-comma style, observing that it is gaining ground, though conceding that the comma-laden version is "traditional".
 * The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation (p. 27, "Traditionally, ... a comma follows the last name.... This comma is no longer considered mandatory.")
 * The Economist Style Guide (p. 8; UK) uses no commas, but is the lone hold-out in continuing to spell the words out in full (New Hart's also recognized that style as still extant, presumably referring to this popular style guide, which is even published in the US, too).
 * Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers (7th ed, 2006; Council of Science Editors, Rockefeller University Press) says "Designations such as Junior (Jr.), ... are part of the person's name; therefore, place them immediately after the name without a comma." [I have the 8th ed, 2014, will check it at some point. Ping me? –SMcC]
 * The Telegraph Style Book (UK) and BBC New Style Guide (UK) do not address it with a rule, but their published content consistently avoids the comma www.telegraph.co.uk/search/?queryText=jr&sort=relevant, . (This is basically original research, and shouldn't be used in the article, because it's personal analysis of data gathered from their sites).

Neutral:


 * Economist: "Use two commas, or none at all, when inserting a clause in the middle of a sentence" here.
 * Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style (pp. 23, 129, 131; US) gives both styles (comma listed first, so presumably preferred), but dates to 2001. Likewise with The New York Public Library Writer's Guide to Style and Usage (p. 257); published in 1994, it favored the comma by default, but said to follow the subject's preference.
 * Briefly, Oxford toyed with the comma. The Oxford Guide to Style of 2002 (republished in 2003 as part of the Oxford Style Manual), leaned toward using the comma when it is used with "Jr.", for Americans, considering the comma an American usage, but even then treated it as optional. For British writing, it preferred that the word be written out, and like other revisions of Harts also noted more British abbreviations like "Jun." and "Jnr"; it seems to not want commas after these, or the word, but isn't really clear on the matter. Regardless, OSM/OGtS was replaced in 2005 with New Hart's Rules (see above), which abandoned this experiment.

Style guides in favor of the comma:


 * The MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing (p. 101, US; and, naturally the student ed., MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, p. 80) and
 * Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage (p. 408–409, &sect; "implicit comparative") both contain a use ", Jr.," but without stating a rule about it (note above that other M-W publications have no rule, either).
 * Webster's New World English Grammar Handbook (US, Wiley) has no rule, but illustrates a ", Jr." on p. 238.
 * Among the last-published versions of older guides, I do find support for it, but it all dates to the 1990s and earlier, e.g.: The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (1993, New York: MJF Books, unconnected with Columbia U.).
 * It's been said on Wikipedia talk pages and Internet forums to be surviving in American legal writing, but business writing style guides (which are closely allied in what they recommend) don't support this.
 * The old American Chemical Society Style Guide did, but dates to 1996.
 * The old American Chemical Society Style Guide did, but dates to 1996.

Silent on the matter:

None of the following address the question at all, as far as I could find: Fowler's (ed. Butterfield, UK) does not address the question, though the other recent ed. does; its detailed sections on commas and names do not suggest such a ", Jr.," usage, however. APA Publication Manual (US),  the FranklinCovey Style Guide for Business and Technical Communication (US), New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors, New Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors (UK), Oxford A–Z of Grammar & Punctuation [yes, an en dash] (2nd ed., 2009–2010), Canadian A–Z of Grammar, Spelling, & Punctuation [yes, with ", &", which is weird – should either be long-form ", and" or short-form " &", not a mish-mash], Oxford Manual of English Grammar, Wired Style (US), Oxford Guide to Plain English (UK), MHRA Style Guide (UK), Practical English Usage (UK), The Manual of Scientific Style (Elsevier, US/Eur./Asia), The Financial Times Style Guide (UK), Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers (5th ed., Australia), Right, Wrong, and Risky: A Dictionary of Today's American English Usage, Scientific Style and Format (6th and final CBE ed., UK), the tiny Associated Press Guide to Punctuation (but see AP Stylebook, above), Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (US; see below for another M-W publication), Editing Canadian English (2nd ed.), The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing (despite having a section for titles like "PhD" and "Esq."), Editor Australia Style Guide, The Cooper Hill Stylebook, The Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage and Style, SAGE UK Style Guide.

Notes:


 * Virtually all sources that address the comma usage at all say that a comma [or other punctuation] must follow as well, and zero said not to use them in pairs this way. Garner observed that leaving it off is inconsistent with other parenthetical usage, and that it leads to ambiguity: ""O'Reilly, Jr. was delayed" seems to be notice to O'Reilly about the tardiness of someone nicknamed Jr.
 * All sources cited, unless otherwise noted with edition information, are the current editions. A new ed. of Editing Canadian English is forthcoming, and so is a new version of the Australian Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers (which is why I haven't gotten the edition between mine and the upcoming one; the trans-Pacific shipping cost is too high for something that's about to be obsolete, and it's not old enough for interest as a historical reference).  I am missing a handful, like the currentGregg Reference and the Penguin Handbook, the first of which is too expensive to bother with, and the second is on order, as is the new ver. of McGraw-Hill which I think came out in Jan.  Also forthcoming are new eds. of MLA Handbook and Garner's Modern American Usage, plus The Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation (Garner's expansion of his Chicago Manual of Style chapter); I have all these pre-ordered.
 * I have not cited dictionaries, because they usually just show the spelling, and many of the unabridged ones, with usage examples that might show punctuation, take 30+ years to update their entries.
 * I have also not cited minor, organization- or field-specific works, nor the house style guides of particular publishers, organizations, agencies/ministries, or universities, only works available to the general public and intended for their use or at least perusal.
 * I skipped citation-style-only guides as well, since treatment of names in citations is highly divergent from normal English prose usage, even in the same publication.
 * British/Commonwealth guides uniformly give "Jr"/"Sr", American ones use "Jr."/"Sr." Canadian ??? not really sure, beyond the ones examined so far.
 * For the "Neutral or indeterminate" category, I looked high and low in those sources, from sections on name, personal names, authors, commas, abbreviations, contractions, comparatives, im etc. Some might actually contain incidental examples of use in them in some other section, but I did not encounter them.
 * All in favor of comma style avoided mentioning or illustrating possessives and their awkwardness, except three. Zero guides were found that stated that a Sammy Davis, Jr.,'s career is permissible. Two, the 1970s Gregg and the 1990s NY Public Library books, permitted the style explicitly, replacing the second comma with the apostrophe, a "rule" I was unable to find in any other source. Another, the American Heritage, had no rule about this (or anything about "Jr." and "Sr.", but I noticed it using "Vine Deloria, Jr.'s book" in an unrelated section.
 * As far as I recall, all those in favor of ", Jr[.]" are also in favor of ", PhD", etc., naturally.
 * The spellings "Jun." and "Jnr[.]" are known to exist, recommended by none of the above, and deprecated by some (e.g. Guardian deprecates both, Times deperecates "Jnr", New Hart's observes "Jun." is rarely used, etc.) Nevertheless, New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (p. 197) gives both as abbreviation of "Junior", and labels "Jr." to be "chiefly American", suggesting this entry has not been updated in several decades; it advises nothing in particular. Oxford/Harts is similar in this respect (even in the 2015 ed., which is odd, given that all the other major British style guides now use "Jr"; even observes the obsolete "junr" & "senr", so its intent appears to be historical).
 * Three (and only three), Oxford/Hart's, NY Public Library, and Gregg (pp. 29, 245) suggested following the preference of the subject.
 * Handling of these name parts in inverted order (as in bibliographies) varies widely from source to source. On average, the general-English sources prefer "Coriolani, Piedro A., Sr." (Gregg 1977 is the earliest I noticed this in, though I wasn't looking for it, and some were published in 2015), while it is mostly specialist academic ones, with highly compressed citation formats, that opt to for variations from "Coriolani, Piedro A. Sr" or "Coriolani, Piedro A Sr.", down to "Coriolani PA Sr" at the extreme.  Bibliographic style is essentially an encoding system, not normal language use, and need not be addressed in any detail in the article.
 * Most but not all in favor of no comma before "Jr[.]" in favor of one before professional and honorary titles; they are clearly drawing a distinction between restrictive and parenthetical.
 * That the comma style is losing has been observed in style guides since at least the 1977 ed. of The Gregg Reference Manual (5th ed.; pp. 10, 29, 109, 129).
 * Both Garner works explain why the comma is undesirable aside from being redundant, and inconsistent with other restrictives: A simple possessive like "Sammy Davis Jr.'s career" is possible without it (see Notes material below), also shown in Gregg (5th, p. 129).
 * Oxford's New Hart's Rules (previously published as The Oxford Guide to Style, and included in the combined Oxford Style Manual edition; all are updates to the original Hart's Rules of the 1890s–1990s), suggest that when "junior" or "senior" (abbreviated or not) is used "as an ad hoc designation" and not part of a formal name, it is not capitalized and is "always" bracketed in commas in such a case. All four eds. also state that (at least in British usage) "senior" (abbreviated or not) is never actually part of someone's name, and [in OSM/OMoS, because it is thus always an ad hoc usage, as per above] should not be capitalized. The different editions veer around on particulars; the first NHR says these ad hoc uses are never abbreviated, and always spelled out "junior" and "senior"; the newest NHR softens this to "usually" spelled out, but drops the rule entirely for "junior" and its ad hoc use, which seems to be a concision editing error, since it resulted in different advice for "junior" and "senior". As noted above, the OSM/OMoS versions were also neutral on the comma when "Jr" is part of someone's name, but were firmly against it in both NHR editions.
 * Aside: virtually none still support "Ph.D." style, with dots, though a few observe that usage exists.)

This is enough material to write a very solid section on this usage of commas in English, and how it has been changing over time. If we need even further-back historical sources, I have those, too, but was focusing on current usage.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Re "Zero guides were found that stated that a Sammy Davis, Jr.,'s career is permissible." — I once saw someone claim that he couldn't stand to read The New Yorker because (among other punctuation choices of theirs) they use this form. The New Yorker may not be a style guide per se, but it does seem to be known for (to quote our article's lead) "its rigorous [...] copy editing". —2d37 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to leave it at a rumor when the rumor is easily confirmed, here are some examples of the The New Yorker's using,  , and others . —2d37 (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's The New Yorker directly discussing its usage of : "The Correct Punctuation of Donald Trump, Jr.,’s Name". —2d37 (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Split off section to new "Comma in English" article?
It was proposed in 2016, without objection, to split what is presently titled Comma to a separate article, per our guidelines WP:Summary style and WP:SPINOFF. WP:Article size (WP:SPINOUT) is also potentially relevant for future article growth, and WP:Stand-alone lists may be as well, since the bulk of this article is a list of (and sublists of) usage and functions of the comma.

Should this split proceed?

I would just do it, but lack of objection is not quite the same thing as a show of support, especially on a page with few watchlisters. I'm including a style parameter in the RfC tag since followers of Wikipedia-internal style discussions are usually also interested in the progress of our reader-facing articles on such subjects (or should be!).

Nominator's rationale: The section is already long, and overwhelms the rest of the content on the page. Yet it is barely developed compared to what could be written with additional sourcing. It needs a lot more of that, since it seems to principally be drawing on only a handful of sources (mostly The Chicago Manual of Style and The Guardian Style Guide), which are not actually representative of the breadth of usage. For example, I've written and sourced multiple paragraphs about a single particular usage dispute, the punctuation of the abbreviations of id est and exempli gratia in English. That material is presently living at exempli gratia and id est, as long footnotes that are essentially identical, because that's where those phrases redirect to. It would make more sense for us to have a comprehensive and sectional article on comma usage in English, with that material in a subsection on parenthetical and introductory phrases. (If articles were created at Exempli gratia and Id est they would both consist largely of that same text.) This is just one example of the kind of material that can be added, and how much it would expand what is presently an already over-long section here, but which remains poorly developed encyclopedic content when the "Uses in English" material is viewed on its own. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No split - My feeling is that I don't know but I'm not seeing it as required and am a bit concerned that the article leftovers here would wind up a typography tidbits mess. I also would not want too much additional usage flavor, per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.  That there could be lots more does not convince me that there should be lots more, though I'm kind of an idiot test audience on this.  So ... overall I'm thinking it might be but I'm just not seeing it.  Markbassett (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no "required"; either it will help content development or not. I've given multiple reasons why it will. Can you articulate a reason it wouldn't?  "I don't know" and "might be but I'm just not seeing it" aren't valid opposition rationales. There is no NOTTEXTBOOK material in the content in question; it offers no advice of any kind, just cites usage sources and neutrally notes where they conflict. That's what WP articles on English usage are supposed to do. Re: "typography tidbits mess": The entire point is to move typography details and their sourcing out of this page; per WP:SUMMARY, what would remain about the comma in English at the Comma article would be an overview.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no "required"; either it will help content development or not. I've given multiple reasons why it will. Can you articulate a reason it wouldn't?  "I don't know" and "might be but I'm just not seeing it" aren't valid opposition rationales. There is no NOTTEXTBOOK material in the content in question; it offers no advice of any kind, just cites usage sources and neutrally notes where they conflict. That's what WP articles on English usage are supposed to do. Re: "typography tidbits mess": The entire point is to move typography details and their sourcing out of this page; per WP:SUMMARY, what would remain about the comma in English at the Comma article would be an overview.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Split – I agree that the section "Uses in English" is disproportionately big for an article on the comma, and that it's a topic that would support a biigger article on its own. Splitting it off and summarizing it here seems like a good way to go. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Split, as long as SMc is interested and willing to do it, and sees a need, support. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, what would become of the "In other languages" section? It seems to me like it would have to be included in the new article, since leaving it here would cause a loss of context. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "In English" would still remain a section, just with the "high points", per WP:Summary style; standard operating procedure with spin-out/spin-off (length and focus) splits of this sort.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Split—Ideally there should be numerous articles, one for each languge (or group of languages in which comma usage is similar). Chinese and Japanese definitely need separate treatment: the history of (European) punctuation in those languages is fascinating, and dates back only a century or two. Tony   (talk)  10:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Split—Even if the uses in English material never grows, it already overwhelms the article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Example: Please see Inanimate whose: This is the kind of encyclopedic material WP have on usage and the history of changes in and disputes about usage. For commas in English, this would easily result in a dozen or more sections of about as much detail as that entire article.  This is what I mean when I say that the English comma material would eventually drown out everything else in this article if not split to a new page for details and just summarized here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is an RfC required for a split? Why not just split it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "I would just do it, but lack of objection is not quite the same thing as a show of support, especially on a page with few watchlisters." The unspoken part was that I'm well aware of habitual flameouts when it comes to English usage matters; there have been RFARBS and indefs about it. Given that even various usage-related RMs are considered grounds for ANI drama festivals, I'm exercising caution, though would treat this split having consensus (which looks likely) as a precedent for similar splits as needed without RfCing them all individually.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But the RfC's not about the content? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Split per nominator's eminently sensible rationale. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  10:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No split - This article does lack treatment of the comma in other languages, but its treatment of the comma in the English language is certainly merited, being the English Wikipedia. On most Wikipedia projects, this sort of treatment is quite normal. But the English Wikipedia occupies a unique position, and there is at least an attempt to provide readers with a more global perspective (in this case much work is needed, but there is a start). Now, if any individual language besides English gets similar treatment here, then it deserves a separate article. Here, there is extreme contrast between the detailed treatment of the comma in English and in other languages. Were the English part much less detailed, then equal treatment of other languages would entail smaller sections for them, and then not even they would merit separation. May I suggest the creation of separate articles on certain tenets of the English comma instead? Inatan (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

my mother's name is "Anne Smith and Thomas"
This second example needs rewording, but I do not even know what meaning is used in it. --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Backinstadiums, I don't know what you mean with "what meaning is used in it"; the semantics of that are incorrect. The example you are pointing at is an example of usage that many would find incorrect. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The intended meaning is what it would be if the comma were present, "I thank my mother, Anne Smith, and Thomas." (thanking 3 people). Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Comma appearance
This comms does not appear as a comma for me: ⹉ Qwerfjkl   talk  21:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is why the section has this notice:


 * Not all systems have kept up to date with the latest updates from Unicode. The vendor may make a judgement call that few of their customers will care enough to go elsewhere. If it matters to you, you may be able to install a font that supports it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to break up the "Languages other than Western European" section
Just as it might be suboptimal to combine non-Western European commas with the W.E. commas in the same section, it is equally inconvenient to have a combined section that includes Greek comma and Chinese comma, as they are not related. I suggest this section is split into logical groups. Specifically, I was looking for the East Asian comma, and thought it would be convenient if this was not mixed with non-related content. --Nidaana (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)