Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts

Survey

• Parentheses for consistency with WP:NC(). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  See also my comments above. Local/regional variations of English spelling/grammar/style are fine. This use of parens vs. commas does not appear to be one of them. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I would also be fine with commas if there's consensus for that. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Status quo as per the long discussion just above. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo. Having re-read the discussion above, I'm now of the opinion that this is a solution in search of a problem. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, redirects from the whatever form(s) are not chosen allow everybody to find what they are looking for with ease. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  The "problem" in my opinion is lack of consistency and an arbitrary distinction being made between different parts of the world. Consistency across guidelines makes them easier for all editors to follow. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• (Like this) I never heard of disambiguation being done with commas in this manner. The only time I think we disambiguate with commas is with place names (i.e. London vs London, Ontario). Aasim (話す（はなす）) 01:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • And buildings - churches, town halls, colleges, and oooh, lots of other things. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

    Sometimes that is the name of the place, for example University of California, Berkeley but not A&M University, Texas Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Status quo: as per previous discussions. Readers don't expect total uniformity but are used to the parentheses/commas variation as in placenames, just as they see both "colour" and "color" and both "14 April 2026" and "April 14, 2026". PamD 05:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo (Summoned by bot) I'm now of the opinion that this is a solution in search of a problem per Thryduulf. We already (rightly) live with inconsistent (local) spellings, based partly on cultural linkage, so inconsistent punctuation usually respecting local norms seems no big deal. Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not aware of any local norms regarding disambiguation of statues outside of this one bullet point on this one page on Wikipedia. Are you aware of such a norm existing elsewhere? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I've just been looking further into the situation in New Zealand. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) § Disambiguation of New Zealand place names seems to boil down to "commas for populated places, brackets for non-populated places (which seems to mean natural geographical features), commas for (man-made) features within populated places", and some further guidelines for when multiple places in New Zealand share a name. This seems to be a good description of the current practice that results in man-made landmarks having comma-separated disambiguation, and that page is the only one for country-specific naming conventions I've found which addresses the issue (unless you count MOS:JAPAN, which implies that train stations should use parentheses). Ham II (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Parentheses everywhere. Nothing makes sculptures special such that we should depart from common practice and recommend an ill-suited alternative disambiguation, and the distinction between North America and everything else is ridiculous. Commas are supposed to be for place names and sculptures are not places. Toadspike [Talk] 09:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Parentheses per Toadspike. Having a consistent style helps the readers, which are the people to whom the project is destined. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Any style that's used consistently. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether parentheses or commas are preferable; if forced to choose, I'd probably pick parentheses, but if commas achieved consensus I wouldn't complain. That said, I think using different syntax based on region is needlessly overcomplicated; it flies in the face of WP:CONSISTENT and could easily confuse readers. I'm not convinced there's an ENGVAR/local norms issue involved; as a North American myself, neither style feels intuitively more or less correct than the other to me. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Take this to a higher level, and until then keep the status quo. This issue affects a wider range of article titles than just those for public sculptures. Earlier in this discussion I tried to find out when the general (but not universal) preference for brackets in North America and commas for the rest of the world came about, and the best I could do was to find was that it was already in place in 2015. It doesn't seem to have been expressed anywhere in a guideline except here on MOS:ART (since 2019). There should be a wider RfC on whether this practice still has broad support, and if there is consensus for it that should be formalised by having it put in a guideline; guidance at MOS:ART should then follow from that. Railway stations currently do their own thing, disambiguating with brackets everywhere except Australia and New Zealand (see above), and this would be an opportunity to rationalise that anomaly as well. Ham II (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Is there actually a guideline on the differing uses for railway stations? I don't see why that isn't something that can be addressed elsewhere. Railway stations etc. simply aren't covered by this guideline. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  There is no global convention for naming railway-related articles. Local usage varies significantly (I've heard it said that this is the topic where British and American English are most divergent, although I have no idea if it's true) so we've arrived a series of regional guidelines over the years (I was responsible for expanding the London convention to cover the UK, circa 2005), some of which have been inspired by others, some of which haven't. AFAIK the issue of parentheses vs commas has never been considered on a global scale. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Either one as long as it is consistent. As far as I'm concerned that particular part of MOS:VA is a guideline coming into pretty clear conflict with policy, namely WP:CONSISTENT.
  Personally, if there are essentially equally correct options to pick between I'm personally always going to be for having consistency, unless there are additional consideration for regional norms, which may or may not justify inconsistency (color/colour etc.).^{although even then I think it'd be better if one is chosen for use in article titles, with the other English variety having another word use it's favoured spelling in article titles} Unless somebody can give a strong argument in favour of that being the case here I think such inconsistency is simply unencyclopedic.
  And to those who say this is a solution in search of a problem I have to ask: if it's not that deep then why are you opposing it? If it's not a big deal, just allow the "solution" to be implemented so we don't have to waste more time discussing it it again later down the line. Also, tiny things like commas and parenthesis in article titles do cost a non-negligible amount of WP:RM volunteer resources to deal with, and having strange little idiosyncrasies like this one ends up both generating more of that work and making it harder to do.
  I don't care which one we pick, but can we please pick one? ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 21:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • • The only thing costing "a non-negligible amount of WP:RM volunteer resources to deal with" is the endless debates on this. Neither style is mandated at present, how does this use editor time? Are you one of the editors affected? Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

      It uses editor time because people file requested moves which have to be discussed and closed, and I wasn't saying that this guideline in particular is causing some RM crisis but rather that, knowing many requested moves happen for small things like this, it is undesirable to have things in the rules that are likely to generate such requested moves as many editors are unlikely to be aware of conventions like that a statue in Canada should use one style, but the park the statue is in a different one, which is also the style that a statue in Japan should use.

      Also I fully agree that debates over things like this one isn't the best way to spend editor time, and that's why I'm saying just pick one already. It's really not that deep. This is not important enough for us to bend over backwards to maintain arcane conventions that only serve to confuse readers and add to the amount of guidelines an editor needs to remember. I just can't see how this guideline is supposed to be improving the encyclopedia. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 16:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Broaden scope: per Ham, this affects more than just sculptures (e.g. buildings like custom houses) and so probably needs to be broader in scope to be worthwhile. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Buildings aren't covered by this guideline. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  The argument is that we should create a guideline that does cover both. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  But if the issue is inconsistency, why only address one (at a time) rather than all at once? Are people specifically not ok with inconsistency regarding statue names, but have a different opinion on churches? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's possible. WP:PLACEDAB is an entirely different guideline and there may be relevant distinctions meaning that we should use parantheticals for one and commas for the other. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• WP:PARENDIS is our default disambiguation and one quite easily understood by readers. The above discussion doesn't explain why some areas have deviated from that. Parentheses have the benefit of being a bit more flexible, if additional forms of disambiguation are required. That all said, consider this a support of a general guideline/principle going forward given the RfC question has been raised, it doesn't raise to an issue requiring an immediate mass move. CMD (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Commas - as I've said above, I favour the status quo, but if we must choose a single style, it should be commas, as more natural. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Any change to the rules for disambiguating things by location needs to be extended to consider buildings such as churches, hospitals, bridges, streets, etc. And thus needs input from a lot of people not particularly interested in public art but very interested in churches, hospitals, etc. It seems pointless to try to make a major change, which could involve moving hundreds, probably thousands, of articles, for just one category of "non-place" articles. PamD 16:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why? This would essentially immunize this one guideline from change unless the other discussion doesn't trainwreck. That's not how we generally amend PAGs. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I have to agree with voorts here. This MOS explicitly carves out a convention that applies to visual arts. This is the question we're dealing with right now, and I don't think creating a big mess of an RfC over something like this is going to be particularly constructive anyways. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 18:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  It only appears to carve out a convention for the visual arts (more specifically, public commemorative sculpture) because the convention hasn't been codified elsewhere, with the possible exception of WP:NCNZ. If we only look at the public sculptures we'll create another carved out naming convention, as I would argue exists for railway stations. Ham II (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I know it's uncodified elsewhere, but that doesn't account for much. The thing is if you don't codify some convention then the articles that it applies to are subject to having codified conventions overrule them. Technically speaking, articles like that are intentionally inconsistent under an uncodified convention can be sent to WP:RM with a WP:CONSISTENCY + WP:PARENDIS argument and it's valid. Now I can imagine just how well a person bringing an entire category of articles up for a requested move like that, but I'm not sure there's any backing in PAGs to oppose it, other than WP:IAR of course. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 19:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Parentheses. Arguably the distinction comes down to whether the subject (the statue) is treated as a thing or a place. We use parentheses to disambiguate everything but for places, which are more easily understood as akin to a postal address. This comma style can also extend to buildings, and arguably statues can likewise be seen as landmarks (places), but in this case I believe we should treat statues primarily as public art (thing, parentheses), rather than public landmark (place, comma). Either way though, there is no reason that some countries should treat statues as art, while others treat them as landmarks. (In case it is not clear: Like others, I am happy enough with commas if that brings more consistency.) — HTGS (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Parentheses. Per HTGS and Toadspike, commas conventionally imply a hierarchy of place. We may need to disambiguate based on all sorts of contextual factors that may not be reducible to such a hierarchy, and parentheses provide more freedom to do so without confusion. Named places are correlated with human occupancy, roughly. We might speak metonymically of the Columbus statue when we mean the plaza around it—but we can speak literally of occupying the places in list of tallest statues. If the thing isn't itself treated as a geographical place, then either broaden the article scope to the surroundings, or accept that it is more thing than place. TheFeds 10:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• Commas, with a second choice of retain-style first editor's pick. Consistency is overrated and not that big of a deal, but statues and buildings are closer to locations (as they don't really move around). So if we must pick, then WP:NATURAL disambiguation works fine here, it's totally understandable in a US context to say "XYZ, Montana". Otherwise, who cares, just defer to the article creator's pick akin to RETAIN for varieties of English. It doesn't matter, both styles work, both styles are understandable. SnowFire (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  If commas, should a North American one like Statue of Christopher Columbus (Norwalk, Connecticut) be Statue of Christopher Columbus, Norwalk or Statue of Christopher Columbus, Norwalk, Connecticut? Bearing in mind also that we could hypothetically have an article for a statue of Fred Foo in, say, Portland, Maine, and another article for a statue of him in Portland, Oregon. Ham II (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  I would defer to the article creator and presume that we'd match the current usage, so "Norwalk, Connecticut". Usually this would match the Wikipedia article title on the city. So I think Statue of Fred Foo, Portland, Maine and Statue of Fred Foo, Portland, Oregon are fine, yes. SnowFire (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Consistency is overrated and not that big of a deal. It's a policy. No other NC has us defer to the article creator and I don't see a good reason to start now. There's been no valid RETAIN argument made here since these conventions aren't actually rooted in any differences between English varieties, rather than the weird idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia editors from a decade ago. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify - I'm absolutely not saying that this is "rooted in differences between English varieties". I'm actually agreeing with you that this is not really being a variety-of-English issue here, hence saying a second choice of "initial / main editor's pick" rather than "status quo" (where the status quo DOES treat this as location-related). I said "akin to RETAIN", so what I'm trying to endorse is more the Wikipedia philosophy behind RETAIN, of "trust the main editor to do their thing and then stand by it, and don't allow people convinced they've discovered the One True Variety of English to run around 'fixing' things." I don't think parens vs. natural is that important, so if there's strife, just... live and let live. Editor time is more valuable than solving which disambiguation style is "better". That's what I mean. SnowFire (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:RETAIN does not apply, as disambiguation is not a variety-of-English issue but an issue of navigational style, and specifically a MediaWiki-imposed style; a necessary outcome of the nature of the software. (I oppose deferring to the article creator as a general rule too, as this is a collaborative and communal project, and not just staking a claim to a page.) — HTGS (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  As the discussion above shows, it is at least partly "a variety-of-English issue". Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Can you point it out to me? I don’t think I’ve seen anyone suggest that American style and British style demand different types of disambiguation, and it would surprise me if that were the case. What I have seen a lot of is the “changing things now would be an awful bit of bother, wouldn’t it?” sort of argument, and I am quite opposed to that sort of thing (see my previous comment). — HTGS (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  I suggest you read this and the various preceding discussions, which I'm afraid I can't be bothered to do for your benefit. But do you think the Brit/American divergence reflected in the current wording came from nowhere? It's not really a case of "demand", but what seems natural. You won't find it in an external style guide, I'd imagine. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree that we should create distinctions between Brit/Am English if they do not exist externally (in the real world). I also disagree that the Brit/Am divergence came from somewhere meaningful, and instead it seems to have arisen by accident from two sets of editors who, presumably without malice, did not notice that their articles were setting different styles. I see no reason to perpetuate a lack of consistency or collaboration. — HTGS (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  I found the previous discussion so you don’t have to (you’re welcome): Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts/Archive 1#Disambiguation by location: parentheses or commas? (2019)

  Per Ham II: My impression is that brackets are used more often for disambiguation in US-related topics, commas for UK-related topics, and that there is no particular pattern for the rest of the world. I don't know why this is and I doubt it's a genuine case of WP:ENGVAR

  It’s clear from that discussion and this one that there was never a good reason to divide them, and the only reason to keep them divided is “we’ve just always done it that way.” And as I said, that’s not a good reason to create arbitrary inconsistency. — HTGS (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  There's a fundamental misunderstanding here as to how languages, and especially English, work. It has been universally accepted for decades that the over-riding principle is usage, which can vary between international areas. It's no good complaining that you can't see a reason for differences, and 'all genuine cases of WP:ENGVAR' arise this way, annoying as you may find them. The reason why "two sets of editors who, presumably without malice, did not notice that their articles were setting different styles" is that their natural usages were different, and various good resons have been advanced, relating to the different way places names etc work, as to why this is so. This is the very definition of an ENGVAR difference. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Johnbod I am not “complaining”, I am telling you—softly, in my polite and hedging dialect—that there is no reason for Wikipedia to create a new ENGVAR from internal community happenstance.

  1) Style is not subject to MOS:ENGVAR. Off the top of your head you can think of many styles where the form Wikipedia uses is a regional one. For example: whether to put punctuation inside or outside of quote marks.

  2) Wikipedia does not create its own variations of English internally. Where variations in English exist in the real world we recognise them, but we do not recognise new variations that exist only on Wikipedia. Such divisions likely only involve a couple of people being deliberate about it, and a handful more going along because they don’t care to concern themselves. We are not Discord; we do not track and endorse new types of English variations merely because someone noticed them arise internally, and especially not without rhyme or reason.

  The impression I get from everywhere else on Wikipedia is that English speakers of all dialects are quite capable of using both commas (Dundas, Ontario, Duns, Scottish Borders) and parentheses (Berlin (band), German (parish)) to disambiguate. I have not yet been given reason or evidence for this regional distinction, other than the mere fact that it was enshrined (without theory or example) in 2019 and the current argument being roughly that “we should leave well alone.” — HTGS (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  We seem to be going round in circles here. There is a long-recognised difference in the form of disam that comes naturally to editors using different versions of English. To me this shows an ENGVAR difference in usage, to you "it seems to have arisen by accident from two sets of editors" and "likely only involve a couple of people being deliberate about it", and various other belittling descriptions. It is pretty pointless to demand reasons for this or most other ENGVAR differences. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  There is a long-recognised difference in the form of disam that comes naturally to editors using different versions of English.^{[citation needed]} voorts (talk/contributions) 02:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Ha, ha! See above, and the the earlier discussions. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  ENGVAR is not a rationale for setting any arbitrary style guideline in place and never changing it because somehow now you’ve decided it’s its own variety of English. You have to show that ENGVAR applies here.

  There is no evidence that this divide reflects any real world versions of English. We can see real world examples of colour vs color; we do not see real world examples of John Smith (London) and John Smith, New York. — HTGS (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• Typically a wholly misleading description of the status quo in the nom; the text now is "This may be done either as "Statue of Fred Foo (Chicago)" (typically preferred for North America) or "Statue of Fred Foo, Glasgow" (typically preferred elsewhere)", NOT "...which states that parenthetical disambiguation should be used in North America and commas for the rest of the world"! Hopeless. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  "Typically preferred" implies what editors should do in most cases, which is presumably why this is written into the guideline. Responding to your comment below, WP:RFCOPEN says to use a timestamp and RfCs are routinely opened without a signature. I also ask you to withdraw your comment calling this RfC POINTy. I had always intended to open an RfC on this issue, but forgot and was only reminded again when I saw this discussion after we started ours below regarding the other part of this MOS. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  "Typically preferred" is clearly phrased to be a statement of what the current usage was. If we'd meant to be prescriptive we wouldn't have used that phrasing. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  It is treated as prescriptive, as the discussion preceding this RfC illustrates. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see that at all. The discussion leads to the conclusion to let sleeping dogs lie. You are welcome to suggest alternative wording. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• If we decide that "statues are not places" and that they should all be disambiguated in the same way, how far along the spectrum from statues and monuments to settlements would we go? Would we want to have consistent disambiguation for a street, a historic district within a city, or a church, or a large memorial? See City Hall (disambiguation), St. Mary's Church etc. PamD 16:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  The guideline here is only about public sculptures. I'm not (and I haven't seen anyone else) suggest we should change other AT guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  My answer to "would we want to have a consistent disambiguation" is yes, we absolutely do. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 21:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Unless there is a flaw in my logic here then if we are to prefer one we should prefer commas:

Commas are universally used to disambiguate places, such as towns and cities. The only reason there is felt to be a need for brackets for American buildings or monuments is because, for whatever reason, there is often a second disambiguator given for these entities, as in "monument (town, state)". Other countries tend to only use one dab as in "monument, town". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The flaw in your logic is that nobody had made that argument for using parens in this discussion. My argument, for example, is that we should follow WP:NC(). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

That's not really an argument. It's more of a statement. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

What? You wrote: The only reason there is felt to be a need for brackets for American buildings or monuments is because, for whatever reason, there is often a second disambiguator given for these entities, as in "monument (town, state)". (emphasis added) That is a strawman for several reasons. First, nobody in this discussion has made any arguments about why buildings should use parens. This MOS section doesn't cover buildings. Second, nobody has made the argument that we need to use parens because there is often a second disambiguator. In fact, I don't even know if that statement is true, so that's certainly not an argument I'm making. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Brother please relax. Its not a strawman, I suggested it as the apparent logic behind place disambiguation format. If you think that no such logic exists, then that is fine. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that, in this area, America is the one place which consistently uses multiple dabs and also uses brackets for its dabs. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I am perfectly relaxed. A strawman, per our article on the term, "is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction". That is what you are doing: inventing an argument for the use of parens that nobody has made, and contending that that argument should be rejected in favor of using commas. The problem is that nobody has made the argument that you are, as you stated, basing your "logic" on. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Apart from that, there's no evidence that this statement is true: there is often a second disambiguator given for these entities, as in "monument (town, state)". Other countries tend to only use one dab as in "monument, town". voorts (talk/contributions) 17:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

There is indeed plenty of evidence. Have a glance at St. Mary's Church, or Statue of Christopher Columbus, or Custom House. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

In fact I will grant you that, even if I'm right about the reasons brackets are used, it doesn't necessarily follow that the rest of the world should not fall in line with American usage, if in so doing we avoid weird multi-comma article names. But of course the third option of status quo (allowing variant formats) remains. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Or perhaps a fourth option: only use brackets for places that require multiple dabs. So that instead of Statue of Christopher Columbus (St. Louis) it would be Statue of Christopher Columbus, St. Louis, but we would keep Statue of Christopher Columbus (Norwalk, Connecticut) Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whether or not anyone has expressed the logic before now, that seems to be what's going on here. WP:NC() says to uses parentheses when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title (and the previous section is about comma-separated disambiguation), not as a first recourse. Ham II (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

How is that what's going on here if literally nobody has adopted that logic? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I say what I mean and mean what I say. If I had wanted to make the argument that's being straw manned, I would have. I assume others arguing for parens would have as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict with this comment) Voorts, I wasn't imputing that logic to you; I was saying that it appears to be the logic governing the use of parentheses much of the time in St. Mary's Church, or Statue of Christopher Columbus, Custom House, etc. Ham II (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

There tends to be a logic behind decision making, whether it is explicit or not. That's all I am trying ascertain. When people decided on brackets for American monuments, was it just completely at random, or was there some rationale behind it. That is not at all an attempt to reconstruct the argument of you or anyone in particular. In any case, no need to admonish people for suggesting a framework that you disagree with, just state your disagreement. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I have stated my disagreement. If you were trying to ascertain the logic from long ago, that wasn't particularly clear since what you in fact did was make an absolute statement that "the only reason for x is y". voorts (talk/contributions) 17:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

But that "absolute statement" was prefaced with "Unless there is a flaw in my logic here". It was a suggestion, that is all. You are free to reject it. All is well. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)