Talk:Samuel Goldwyn Jr.

Redirect woes
Frances Howard currently redirects to Frances Carr, Countess of Somerset, who I believe would have been a bit too ancient (and dead) to bear Mr. Goldwyn. Although she was née Howard.

Black Foxe Military Insitute
I believe he went there.--Jrm2007 (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2015

 * 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: No move. We have a conflict here between two style variations that are widely used. The comma version seems to be more widely used in the sources, though the commaless version is preferred by the relevant MOS. However, the MOS wording is currently a matter of dispute, and there's no consensus here to move the article, so the status quo prevails for now. Cúchullain t/ c 15:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. → Samuel Goldwyn Jr. – Per a recent discussion and to WP:JR, there should be no comma before "Jr." A technical move is required as the target page already exists as a redirect. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 05:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Reliable sources use the comma by more than 2:1, as seen in this Google Books search. No reason to change the title from one acceptable variant to another - especially when the current title is vastly more common. See WP:TITLECHANGES. Dohn joe (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a decision of style as reflected in the change to WP:JR—as a rule, the comma is not required, and in fact causes more confusion than omitting it (since many people fail to add another comma after the "Jr."). —sroc &#x1F4AC; 13:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Regardless of what sources use, a comma before a predecessor or successor requires a simple memorization and a simple comma key. A comma is required in American English, but it is a nuisance also. Maybe we can eliminate a period (.) after an abbreviation, but I don't know. George Ho (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:Dohn joe. The new WP:JR wording does not prohibit a comma, so go with WP:UCN (use common names) and keep in mind WP:TITLECHANGES ("If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.").  —  AjaxSmack   15:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If "there is no good reason to change it"—well there is a good reason to change it: MOS has been changed following an RfC deciding to do away with commas before "Jr." The reasons why this change is a good move across the board have already been enumerated in detail in the RfC.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 17:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the RfC said: "The MOS page already states that the comma is not needed, so that the MOS page can be left as it is." The MOS page said (and now says):  "Do not place a comma before Jr...unless it is the preference of the subject or sources concerning the subject".  "It is unnecessary to place a comma before Jr...," but not prohibited.  In short, it does not call for the contradiction of WP:UCN. —  AjaxSmack   17:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What the f are you talking about? How does WP:UCN encourage you to put a comma where sources mostly do not?  If you want to raise a stink about the MOS, pick a subject where the evidence is on your side, if you can find one.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, AjaxSmack is probably referring to the Google Books search that I linked to above, where usage is roughly 2:1 in favor of the comma. We do tend to look to actual published material, as opposed to the websites you linked to, as you know (and as you usually do yourself). Dohn joe (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:JR. Using the comma leads to so many mismatch errors that WP's MOS and other modern style guides advise doing without.   If IMDb can omit the comma, we can, too.  Also note that all 3 of the cited sources omit the comma.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move— it's a matter of stylization, not one of "common names", so the stylization we use should follow our MOS which prefers no comma in this situation.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The MOS does not mandate omission of the comma, it merely says it is preferred. But in this case with the preponderance of its usage in reliable sources, it's best to keep it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No such preponderance is in evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per commonname established by reliable sources. -- Calidum  03:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which reliable sources do you mean? In the first page of Google hits, the only one I see using the comma is Wikipedia.  In books the comma is more common, but far from universal.  Clearly this is just a style issue; there's no dispute about what the man's name is.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. When was the Manual of Style changed from having the comma to NOT Having the comma before Jr., it used to read the opposite? The original RFC proposal to move all the articles was made by seven people on a 5 to 2 split at an obscure venue. Where were all the opposing votes then? If the rules require us to have a comma AFTER when we use a comma BEFORE, why aren't we following that rule, instead of eliminating all commas? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the MOS never said to use a comma there. The most significant change was this one in 2009.  The more recent change removed the exception, which someone had put into the MOS for Sammy Davis Jr. as if he preferred a comma; in general there's no way to know what a subject prefers, nor any reason to let that affect us, was the concensus.  In the present case, Samuel Goldwyn Jr. without the comma is widespread; many modern sources do as we do and dispense with the comma, thereby avoiding the messiness of whether to fix the unbalance by using two commas. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What Dicklyon says. Tony   (talk)  06:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per reading the discussion. Randy Kryn 4:42 26 March, 2015 (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.

Requested move 3 April 2015

 * 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) 19:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. → Samuel Goldwyn Jr. – Let's try this again. If some editors think that the guidance at WP:JR is not great, they should either work on revising it, or challenge it at an article where at least one of the cited sources or external links use the comma. In this article, none do. So claiming that this is about following the sources is nonsense. Let's just fix it, then we'll satisfy both the people who want to "follow the sources" for style as well as those who respect Wikipedia's own guidelines. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as disruptive. This move was rejected two days ago. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But you ignored my refutation of your objection last time. This gives you another chance to be reasonable, and revoke your mistaken claim about sources supporting the comma.  Dohn Joe and Amakuru also deserve a chance to change their minds since it has been pointed out that their claims are not supported by evidence.   Those who claim the WP:UCN is meant to apply to style should be supporting this move, not opposing it.  Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support an RFC, fix the MOS and have 1 consistent rule. This isn't disruptive, the lack of a clear MOS is disruptive. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We are still waiting for this to be addressed at . Le sigh.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 13:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hard to see how that close review would have any effect on this article. Dicklyon (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This move was just rejected two days ago, so this seems like an attempt to tire (WP:ATT) (fake link provided by the good people at Britannica). Then, what, if someone tries to contact people who commented before and alert them of a new discussion (even as they are celebrating down at the pub and have a two-day hangover) it's called 'canvassing' (which also points to preparing a canvas for a painting)? Keep on putting a request up until people don't oppose it any more? What way is that to run an encyclopedia. Randy Kryn 17:32 3 April, 2015 (UTC)
 * If the RfC review concludes that WP:JR should say "Do not place a comma..." (as it should) then it will undermine the opposing argument that MOS does not forbid the comma. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 02:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's kind of a silly argument, though. The MOS never forbids or requires anything.  It just recommends.  Why not follow it?  Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well anyone can ignore the rules with good reason, but comments like "The new WP:JR wording does not prohibit a comma" and "The MOS does not mandate omission of the comma" would be without merit if the wording were unambiguous as originally proposed. Thus, we would have a better chance of convincing the nay-sayers if WP:JR is fixed first.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How is "Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation" ambiguous? Seems like a pretty clear statement of preferred WP style to me. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is clear, but since DrKiernan changed it to "It is unnecessary to place a comma ..." (which is ambiguous) and the wording has been disputed, the nay-sayers will continue to challenge any page move that uses WP:JR as a basis. I applaud your efforts in lobbying for the move based on the consensus to change WP:JR to "Do not place a comma ...", but it would be better to wait for that dispute to be resolved before re-opening page move discussions.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But his change was not what the RFC consensus was, which is why it didn't last. If people still find the advice dislikable for some reason, why haven't they started an RFC to propose a change?  The close review is not standing in the way.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Dicklyons' points. Tony   (talk)  07:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose and Speedy close. Why do the sources that happen to be cited in the article have to demonstrate use of the comma?  It's used in sources.  There is no good reason to change (no, following MOS is not a good reason to change).  --В²C ☎ 20:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, following MOS is an excellent reason to make a change on a matter of style—that's what the MoS is fot—but we can wait for the latest RfC to settle the wording before finalising this move. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 21:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Samuel Goldwyn Jr, per the unsage in every listed reference.  No comma.  Ambivalent about the trailing period, not used in this one.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment- I'm afraid I don't know that many Jrs off the top of my head but our articles on Sammy Davis Jr., Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Downey Jr. all omit the comma. Whatever's decided here, can we have them all the same?--Ykraps (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of those articles had commas until recently, and guidance on that issue is currently under discussion. Please see Village_pump_(policy) for an RfC on the issue. Dohn joe (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If those moves were undiscussed, I would simply move them back with the edit summary, "Undiscussed, controversial", or similar; if they were discussed, I would simply respect consensus and move on.--Ykraps (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Ykraps: They were undiscussed. There was a lightly attended discussion on the MOS subpage, and as a result one editor moved and requested dozens of page moves to remove commas. I asked the admins who made the moves to undo them, but because of the unsettled guidance, they are holding off until the resolution of the above RfC. Which means that in the meantime we may have inconsistent titles. Which is one reason I think we should hold off on the pending RMs. But that's just me.... Dohn joe (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as this seems to be one which could go with the comma, and per Ykraps statement (if editors want to make those four names uniform, do so with the comma, especially because of the case of Dr. King's article). Randy Kryn 22:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Question - Not living in a part of the world where it is common to name your son after yourself, I am intrigued: I had always assumed that junior wasn't part of the legal name, the birth certificate just had the same name for the son as the father, and people added the junior after to differentiate between the two when necessary. If this is the case then presumably the comma is used here instead of brackets, which would've been my choice, and so a further comma will be required after Jr, if used in the middle of a sentence. If, however, the birth certificate includes Junior as part of the legal name, then no commas are required. Have I got the arguments here about right?--Ykraps (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:UCN but will defer to a decision here at the village pump if it is forthcoming. —  AjaxSmack   03:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AjaxSmack, your google search is not a reliable source. It may pick up reliable sources, but includes things such as the acknowledgement pages, which are not properly considered content of the book.  In contrast, the sources listed in the article are already judged to be the leading reliable sources, and they present an entirely different result.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Google Books link I gave returns hits for both the comma and the comma-less form. Determining the most common requires a perusal of the results which I conducted (the first 100, anyway).  I eliminated questionable hits like the ones you mentioned as well as others such as the Success Facts series before reaching a conclusion.  Wikipedia's paltry three sources do not represent a corpus of reliable sources. (Also note WP:CIRCULAR.) —  AjaxSmack   05:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AjaxSmack, thanks for your reply. Your !vote did not indicate to me that you had done nearly so much work.  WP:CIRCULAR doesn't apply to this, because it is perfectly reasonable, even preferable, for all things content including title to follow the sources, and the default sources are the sources actually used to build the actual content.  However, I do note that a search for other sources does give title/introductive use with comma, in contrast to the article sources, and I don't disagree with your use of "paltry" given other available sources.  I'll strike my !vote while I chew on this.  I think this calls for some article improvement by use of more sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2015 (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.

Requested move 13 May 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: Move to remove comma. Third time lucky ;) Now go do interesting things. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. → Samuel Goldwyn Jr. – The previous RMs resulted in retaining the comma. This time, shall we still retain it or omit it? WP:JR prefers omitting the comma but does not require doing so. George Ho (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – preferred is preferred. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:JR and WP:CONCISE. This is routine now, and can be speedied as noncontroversial.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice this is just copy-and-paste, Stanton. Was ignoring previous RMs decided after the consensus agreed in the latest RfC? --George Ho (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble parsing that. Anyway, you opened a bunch of near-identical RMs, all rehashing what dozens of full RMs and hundreds of speedy RMs have already covered, and which an RfC in Feb. covered, so, yes, I'm copy-pasting my procedural and unenthusiastic agreement that the pages should have the comma removed, and my observation that we already know what and don't need an RM about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the preceding RM, which resulted in retaining the comma? George Ho (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly no longer relevant. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the RM is needed, per the closings at the comma discussion which includes (and prefers) grandfathering, and the close at Martin Luther King Jr. Library which, because of the grandfathering close, requires an RM in controversial cases. I'd say anything Dr. King is controversial and needs an RM, especially after what is occurring now with the alternate-name discussion at that library page. Randy Kryn 19:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per Dicklyon and this is routine now, and can be speedied as noncontroversial per User:SMcCandlish In ictu oculi (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – No reason for not following the guidance at MOS:JR established by the recent RfC. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - not even an attempt to make the required case for the comma. WP:JR prefers omitting the comma but does not require doing so. shows a lack of understanding of the guideline and the recent history of this issue. We don't need this kind of RM. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:JR. This is routine work, now that new guidelines have been established. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 18:51, 18 May 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.