Talk:Comma

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Re "Zero guides were found that stated that a  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  <span id="Jr." ></span>In English: Commas used with "Jr[.]" and "Sr[.]" 

message: It was proposed in 2016, without objection, to split what is presently titled Comma#Uses in English to a separate article, per our guidelines WP:Summary style and WP:SPINOFF.  WP:Article size#Splitting an article (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  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)
thread_title:  RfC: Split off section to new "Comma in English" article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  my mother's name is "Anne Smith and Thomas" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion to break up the "Languages other than Western European" section