Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. National Historical Park

message: Parts or all of the site are variously designated as NRHP-listed, a NHL district, and/or a National Historic Site.  The article included a Protected Areas infobox but it is not an international IUCN-designated natural environmental protected area, so i am removing the Protected area infobox and otherwise stripping out those claims.  Because a) it is an urban area and this is not a natural seascape or landscape area that might be eligible for IUCN designation; and b) it is not documented that this is IUCN designated.  In fact there was a hidden comment in the infobox: "Note: site is not listed in IUCN database, but appears to conform with Category V". doncram (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NHS, NHLD, NRHP vs. Protected Area designations

message: should move to a separate article imho dm (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  hall of fame 

message: In the last year, this article's title has had every combination of commas before and after the "Jr.". Two of these, with two commas or with no commas, are acceptable styles, according to most English grammar guides, while the current title and the other one-comma title are not. Should we fix this? Sometimes editors prefer to use the "official" name that the National Park Service uses.  That's the one I moved to after an editor made the silly title with only a comma after Jr. But that got switched to the current odd title at some point. What's that about?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: New consensus and guideline at WP:JR - default is no comma. Moving. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

text: And the claim that the comma is "official" is not supported by a look at the nps.gov page.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commas: too many, or too few? 

message: The closer has participated in comma discussions, so I don't think a close by  is a good idea, even if someone else will come by and close it the same way. So could you please reverse this one, and I ask a new closer to carefully read my statements on the RM. As for "The comma can be used in cases where it is clearly and consistently preferred for a particular subject in current, reliable sources", I'd asked for one of those ancient n-gram searches but couldn't figure out how to do it with the comma included, can someone do one of those on these names before a close, which should have probably been done? The real name of the Historic District and the name without the comma. And "consistent" doesn't mean, or shouldn't, that if some sources don't list the comma then the real name is  tossed overboard. This is one of the Catch-22 things people have been using, that word 'consistent', it's as if some newspaper of note mistypes "Declaration of independence" then that page name should automatically be changed. "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" or some such saying, and maybe that should be written into the "guidelines".  has said that the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial may be the next RM, but that one is pretty obviously the well used common name, so I hope a precedent isn't set here of a close by someone who maybe has an already set opinion. Thanks, and no offense intended, just want to make sure the Memorial and the King page itself are given a very fair chance of keeping their names. Randy Kryn 22:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Randy, I have no opinion at all on the Jr. question, and I don't believe I've ever voted support or oppose in any discussion on the topic. Correct me if I'm wrong. And my only involvement with this specific article was to move it back to the original title with the comma after it was initiall moved without discussion. I have moved a few other Jr articles in recent months, but only when they appear at WP:RMT, because those adhere to WP:JR and are therefore uncontroversial, and maybe one or two other closes of clear RM requests. This one is also a clear cut application of that guideline, given the weight of support and the arguments made, so respectfully again I will not be reversing what to me is a very obvious close. Take it to WP:MRV if you think there's something wrong with this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall a vote but I seem to recall a comment or two in favor of comma-less pages, although I may be wrong also. But your close here does show that you think there is a year-long consensus on this while, if you had followed it, editors who were for exceptions and grandfathering of pages (totally within the guidelines and closes) have been sort of bullied away, and even I have given up on saving the real names of other people, ships, etc. and have stuck to the King pages. The rest of the King pages seem to tilt towards the comma, and so if those are RM'ed I would hope that there can be a totally unbiased closer or even a team of closers (as in the Hillary Clinton close) who will give all sides an equal viewing (your close language here does seem to imply a bias, no?). Randy Kryn 23:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bullied away" is your spin for "deferred to a consensus they strongly disagreed with". You might try it. One does not have to be convinced, only outnumbered, and you couldn't be more outnumbered. This applies even if you perceive abuses of process, such as the grandfathering issue, unless you care to take the question to a higher level for discussion. This is how Wikipedia works, and it astounds me that you have been around as long as you have without learning that. You are a textbook one-man crusade, and I implore you, once again, to stop. Or, if you like, take the whole issue to a max-public venue like VPP or ANI (or ArbCom) and we can all have it out once and for all. We shall call it Commagate. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

text: For whatever it's worth, as someone who is a regular RM closer, I endorse Amakuru's decision here. I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint Randy, but I think it's clear that in this case at least there was a clear consensus to move. Jenks24 (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , you're probably right on this one, although changing the real name of the place should be problematic and actually worrisome for an encyclopedia. Had asked for a different closer because of precedent for the next RM's on this subject, hopefully a closer who takes every piece of data into consideration.  may think consensus is counting noses ("one does not have to be convinced, only outnumbered"), so the energy of his "astonishment" at me not knowing that can be used to educate himself about consensus. And check out the RM discussion at Joseph Kennedy Sr. for a time when more editors than myself were involved in questioning the decision to interpret policies and guidelines to obtain a result (there was also a renaming of a ship which resulted in one of the vocal editors leaving these discussions). On this Historic District RM, the problem seems to have been the National Park Service's website, which contains mixed messages as to this comma. That doesn't exist at the King Memorial page which has been announced as possibly the next RM  is considering, and which has an overabundance of comma-evidence. Still wondering what an n-gram on this Historic District page would show, does anyone know how to do an n-gram which includes a comma? Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's possible to do an ngram that differentiates between versions with a comma and those without.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline does not refer to predominance of reliable sources, but says "clearly and consistently preferred". This is a higher bar than is usually applied to Wikipedia content, and this has been pointed out to you countless times, to apparently deaf ears. You don't like that clause, so you are determined to ignore it. Given the sources we already have, no amount of n-grams supporting the comma would clear that threshold, so I'm lost as to why you're talking about n-grams.Further, "consensus is not about numbers" does not mean that we can unilaterally declare a consensus void because we disagree with it. Again, if you disagree, take it to a higher level. If you don't, someone else will, and it probably won't be VPP. I think I've been very civil by Wikipedia standards, but I'm pretty close to exhausting my patience, and I don't think I'm the only one. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ? I'm not going to challenge this close further, simply because of that website mistake on the Park Service's part (not the stylized stone mentioned by the closer which is, arguably, a design while includes the comma and period made into artistic lines). Consensus is not counting noses, but about weighing all of the data presented, and that's why I asked for an n-gram which, in the past, has been a standard form of "evidence". And if you are close to exhausting your patience, maybe a Wikibreak? Why would you be impatient about an editor pointing out that the article for a named site where Dr. King is buried should include (which it does in the physical universe) the name on his tombstone? Let such things play out, please, without losing patience, and do read the page on consensus to see what it is and what it isn't. Several people who had been defending the use of commas also lost patience, but at people not going by the naming provisions of the guidelines, and left these discussions. Maybe the anti-King comma editors can stop at this one, because the others have even more evidence that the comma-included is the common name. Or we can just go with removing the Jr. altogether and use just Martin Luther King in the titles, which is also one of King's two common names. Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe a new closer on this one?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site. 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/20090513010639/http://www.gainformer.com/Files/International%20Civil%20Rights%20Walk%20of%20Fame%20Inductees.htm to http://www.gainformer.com/Files/International%20Civil%20Rights%20Walk%20of%20Fame%20Inductees.htm
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) 09:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site. 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/20090131023247/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1430&ResourceType=District to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1430&ResourceType=District
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) 19:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by Fursheep98 (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Honors English 250HV10