Talk:Desi Arnaz Jr.

Untitled
Desi is a wonderful person and loves being the offspring of the world famous Lucille Ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.152.14 (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2016

 * 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. Just a reminder that the nominator does not have to give a support !vote; their support is presumed unless otherwise stated. Number  5  7  19:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Desi Arnaz, Jr. → Desi Arnaz Jr. – Per WP:JR, Wikipedia prefers to omit the old-style comma. Plus sources and external links show that the comma is most frequently NOT used for this guy in modern sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree - I did however, made the article consistent for now. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Moving from one accepted style to another goes against 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.") and a couple of ArbCom decisions: Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan and Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk. The comma is still accepted style at WP:JR, and is found in modern sources in general and with Arnaz in particular, so no need to drop it here. Dohn joe (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The use of comma before Jr. is nowhere characterized as "accepted" in the sense that different variants of English and different reference styles are accepted. WP:JR, based on an RFC and in consideration of modern grammar and style guides, says "Omission of the comma before Jr./Jr/Jnr or Sr./Sr/Snr is preferred" in most cases.  The notion of multiple accepted styles is just not applicable here, and this move is not "without a good reason".  The reason is a consensus to move toward consistency with modern sources and modern styles. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Per MOS:IDENTITY, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:NAMECHANGE: The subject himself no longer uses the comma, on official website at least as far as 2001, consistent with more recent homepage . This article should have moved years ago. But let's pretend we couldn't find this info, and analyze the other arguments. (see MOS:JR), per RfC at WP:VPPOL last week. It changed because consensus agreed that, based on overwhelming evidence of both modern style guides, and usage in recent reliable sources, it is clear the comma-laden style is now distinctly in the minority in modern sources, across all dialects, genres, and registers. Definitely true for this subject; Google News: . It is no longer true that there are two equally acceptable styles, on or off WP. MOS permits the comma – for BLPs proven to insist on it (the opposite is the case here), and for cases for which modern sources predominantly, not just sometimes, use that style (these two categories will probably have a 1:1 relationship; even Martin Luther King Jr. is predominantly spelled without the comma today; see RfC for details). That FUD up there about ARBCOM is an argument to emotion and a red herring; there is no conflict whatsoever between those cases' outcomes and this RM. ArbCom talking about multiple acceptable styles means acceptable in a specific context on Wikipedia according to MoS, not according to random offsite viewpoints (otherwise it would be permissible to use "ain't" in Wikipedia, and we could not have a style guide). Even if nothing had changed at MoS at all, there would still be no conflict, because it is perfectly valid to use a process like RM to gauge consensus about something; the ArbCom cases were about tendentious editwarring in an absence of any consensus that one option should be used rather than another. Apples and oranges. The above opposer is clearly misreading MOS:JR's plain wording in multiple ways, and misunderstanding how ArbCom works and what its decisions mean; it does not issue irrational edicts that styles the guideline deprecates cannot be replaced with those it prefers. It does not rule on content matters at all (including guideline content), only behavioral ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as nom – This is routine per the WP:MOS as SMcC points out. Dohn joe's reaction against fixing comma stylings to a more modern and widely preferred style, after an RFC re-affirmed it, is perplexing.  As for "MOS has changed", yes, it did, back to what it had said for years already, after a year of weirdness during which it said either style was acceptable, which Dohn joe took to mean he could move many articles back to using the excess commas; this is not one of those, but he is causing a lot of trouble elsewhere about this simple style issue. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – The comma is not used consistently in reliable sources, if at all, and hence it should be omitted per MOS:JR. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "if at all"? The comma is readily found, as it is with all these examples - it is still widely used. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here.... Dohn joe (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For each of those, I can list a source that does not use the comma (e.g. here, here, here, here, &c). There is no consistent usage of the comma, and hence it should be dropped per the MoS. You've not provided any justification for not using the preferred style. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The justification comes from the WP:MOS itself: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." And from ArbCom: "Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike." WP:JR does not mandate one style over the other - it expresses a preference. So we should not be editing articles just to change from one acceptable style to another. Dohn joe (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is good reason to remove the comma. Firstly, because the non-comma form is very common in RS. Secondly, because the MoS prefers that usage. Thirdly, the reasons why the MoS prefers that usage were clearly expressed in the RfC that made the preference, and those reasons apply here: the comma is often misused, is disfavoured by the vast majority of English style guides, and makes readability more difficult. There is no benefit to using a minority usage that isn't preferred by our MoS. If this were change for change's sake, I'd understand your argument. However, it isn't. The move makes sense. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand having a preference, but when there are two acceptable styles out there - actually used by a significant percentage of RSs, as seen in any Google Books search, it hurts the project to needlessly deprecate a perfectly good style. sDohn joe (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The comma is found in RS. A tiny minority of them that are current, and not even that many that are not until you get back into the 1980s. LOL. Dohn joe, are you serious planning to play this hand-waving game continuously, day after day, month after month?  Wouldn't it be more productive to save some of this ire for a case that actually has a snowball's chance?  Arnav himself does not use the comma. Virtually no modern sources do. I thought you liked the idea of following the sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Um..... If by "tiny minority" you mean "about half" and if by "back into the 1980s" you mean "the past 20 years" then I agree. Have a look-see at Google Books from 1995-present. Six on the the first page, four on the second, four on the third.... Even our friends at Oxford University Press use the comma for this fellow. If you plan to base your arguments on current usage you might want to know what that usage is. Dohn joe (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Already provided this once, but here you go again: [] Current RS news sources, in much larger quantity, and a strong majority without the comma, page after page.  So, what is your point exactly?  This is all academic. I trust your Gbooks counting. Congratulations: You've shown mixed usage, not strong favoring of the comma, ergo we don't use the comma. We know the subject does not use the comma, ergo we don't.  We know from the news sources that the RS in the aggregate mostly no longer using the comma, ergo we don't use it. Constrain the books search to 2005–present, the commas drop markedly, further evidence we're right to avoid it.  Four to zero in favor of that direction.  Even you really, really love the RfC closer's vague "toward" language, well, here's your toward. I really don't see what you hope to accomplish with these antics; it's a waste of time.  If you really love these commas so much, wouldn't it be far more constructive to go find notables whose official websites consistently (not just one page; people will check) use the comma, and ensure they do here?  That would actually serve an encyclopedic interest, since we don't want WP to be "pushing" a slightly inaccurate name for them just because whoever created the page didn't bother to check.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:JR In ictu oculi (talk) 09:33, 24 March 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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Desi Arnaz Jr.. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917010107/http://www.savelucydesicenter.org:80/pjarticle.html to http://www.savelucydesicenter.org/pjarticle.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Desi Arnaz Jr.. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717002921/http://www.desiarnazjr.com/ to http://www.desiarnazjr.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is just silly
We have ""Lucy's $50,000,000 baby," ($510,213,033 in 2021 dollars)". There is no reason to translate that number which is used to make a point, into 2021 dollars to nine(!!) significant figures. If it is necessary to put it into modern money then something like "(ten times that in 2023 dollars)" would work.Cross Reference (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)