Talk:Sing Sing

Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles

Law Enforcement High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

New York (state): Hudson Valley High‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

Alrighty.... I started this page because it shouldn't have been deleted. And I couldn't find it under Sing-Sing Prison. But there are links to both names, and I really think those links should be consolidated under one name. Which name should we use for the Prison? It's been called Sing-Sing. Sing-Sing_(Prison) ?
-- ~ender, 2003-08-31 01:14:MST

Yup, found a band named Sing-Sing too:

http://www.sing-sing.co.uk/

-- ~ender, 2003-08-31 01:31:MST—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.17.17 (talk) 08:20, 31 August 2003 (UTC)[reply]

The band is obscure, so obscure that it does not yet have an article. All links leading to here refer to the prison, so I move it back. --Jia ng 06:22, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please clean up the "sing sing's home town" section?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.233.163 (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I could in the short time I had.Animaterra 02:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visting Hours

True or false?

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Prayer.html Rich Farmbrough 15:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Attica Correctional Facility from "see also" section, as it doesn't relate to article, and that it can be found under the link to List of New York state prisons in same section. It can also be found at Category:Prisons in New York category. --Riley 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam12901 (talk • contribs)[reply]

A new topic

Here's an issue for discussion on this page. Although a number of states' electric chairs were in truth nicknamed "Old Sparky"(Including the chair at Sing Sing) , I am quite sure that in popular usage the name refers specifically to the Florida electric chair.

If I am correct about this, it would not be accurate to caption the Sing sing chair as "Probably the most famous American electric chair"

Any opinions on this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. World History (talk • contribs) 01:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Electric Chair, Dates

This sentence confuses me: "From 1914 until 1971, only the electric chair at Sing Sing was used for executions." For one thing, the next sentence says the last execution was 1963, so I don't know what 1971 is. Also, the placement of the "only" is confusing. Only the electric chair at Sing Sing, and no electric chairs anywhere else? That can't be right. Should it be "executions was performed at Sing Sing all used the electric chair?" Or "all executions in NY state were performed at Sing Sing using the electric chair?" Ccrrccrr 03:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Sing Sing Prisoners

I just watched The Producers for the upteenth time this weekend, and I cannot remember, indeed ever, if it is mentioned that Ulla goes to Sing Sing. In the fictious pardon that frees Leo, Max, and Liepkind, Ulla is never mentioned. Zidel333 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would be right. Neither Ulla nor Roger are sent to prison. They weren't in on it, although she did go with Leo to Rio and enjoy the proceeds. Liepkind is sent for attempted murder, not the money scam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.177.39.127 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the Prison

This article needs some discussion as to why it is called Sing Sing, and when it came to be called that. I'm assuming it comes from Ossing, New York. Zidel333 19:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both the town and the prison were originally named Sing Sing, which was itself an anglocized form of Sint Sink, the name of the Native American tribe that had populated the region. My recollection is that the town eventually changed its name in order to dissociate itself from the prison. Lpslogan29 14:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of citations that, I hope, will help. Animaterra 02:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punishment

The first paragraph of the "Punishments" subsection needs editing badly. Alfvaen 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdos

Why are there so many weirdos in here? And check this line in the article: 'Lynds' plan was to kill everyone'. Wa? Get the loonies OUT.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.49.212 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, see this line in the section Punishments: "In addition to an end of the brutality, the facility was slowly modernized." This is decidedly NOT showing NPOV. Brutality is a very very loaded (emotionally) word, and is, in this context (referring to capital punishment) inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The Wilschon 02:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Carola?

I admit I didn't read the article very carefully, but who/what is "Carola"? Entheta 18:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name? word? "Carola" does not appear anywhere else in the article except in the section header. All I can think of is that it is a typo for "Cholera", which is mentioned in that section. Very odd. Plus, that section is filled with quotes, but they are not attributed to any source. I'm thinking of just taking it out of the article and saving it here on the Talk page, until someone can figure out what's up with it. --MCB 01:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been tagged since Dec. 2006, I've gone ahead and moved it to the talk page. It appears in its entirety below. The Wilschon 02:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carola

During the inmates' stays at the prison their lives were constantly filled with hardships and sometimes no rest. A normal day consisted of working for "ten hours and forty-five minutes starting at six in the morning and ending at six" in the evening. The other hour and fifteen minutes were spent eating and walking to and from work. "This work schedule was set during the summer days from May 15th to September 15th." As time passed from the summer days to colder winter type days the work hours were cut down to "eight hours and forty-five minutes or nine hours and forty-seven minutes" approximately. The hours they were not working they were locked up in their cells for the most part. It was hard for inmates to develop good work habits since there were no incentives or rewards such as good behavior time given to them.

The inmates would march directly from work to the cells where they would receive bread and coffee. In the morning they would receive hash and coffee; the hash was made up of the left over meats from the previous day and potato. Time and time again the inmates would receive this same food for breakfast and dinner unless instructed by a physician that it be changed for sick inmates to mush and molasses. Due to the type of food the men would get, during the winter many of the men would become sick. More than 100 men would suffer from scurvy and eleven died from Asiatic cholera and fifteen from tuberculosis in the year of 1854. Those sick and mentally unstable men were segregated in a completely different section of the prison called the "outer Ward". The "insane men were transferred to the Utica State Hospital but this practice was prohibited by the Legislature in 1854, because of the objection to mixing both citizen and criminal insane."

The weekends seem just as painful as the punishments they would receive when they behaved with misconduct. As soon as they would finish work on Friday afternoon until Monday morning they were locked in the cells. The only time that they would not be locked in the cells is when they would attend the chapel for a short amount of time. "In 1912 the first Sunday dinner was served in the mess hall. A year later soup or some other inexpensive dish was added to the daily supper of bread and coffee, and the meal served in the mess hall rather than in the cells, terminating at last a practice that had governed the evening meal for 90 years. Columbus Day, 1912, was the first holiday the men spent out of their cells."

I think it's cholera too.Monzonda^talk 05:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just vandalism, although the section is itself somewhat questionable, having been inserted in a wiki-unfit format and being based on a source that isn't available anymore (except on Internet Archive), which doesn't exactly help. See this and this revision. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"sent up the river"?

We're told that 'the expression "sent up the river" refers to criminals convicted in New York City being sent up the Hudson River to Sing Sing', but not what "sent up the river" actually means in modern usage. I know what "sending up" means (parodying something or someone and/or taking the mickey out of them/it), and what "sold down the river" means, but as for "sent up the river" I'm none the wiser. Is "sent up the river" a New York expression, or a widely used American expression (bear in mind I'm not American, nor do I live in New York)? 217.155.20.163 (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sent up the river" is a widely-used idiom in the United States for "sent to prison", based on the New York expression referred to in the article. I'll take a look and see how that can be made more clear. --MCB (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding (though I don't have any good references handy) is that "sent up the river" and "up the river" were originally coined in reference to New York's short-lived Newgate Prison in Greenwich Village, but really became part of the popular slang for being sent to prison in reference to Sing Sing (which replaced Newgate in the 1820's as the destination of choice for New York City's hardened criminals). I find it striking that this phrase is missing from the main article, is this because of a need for references? --Gleef (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sing Sing article says "The expression 'up the river' to describe someone in prison or heading to prison derives from the practice of sentencing people convicted in New York City to serve their terms in Sing Sing. The prison is literally up the Hudson River from the city. The slang expression dates from 1891." The Greenwich Village article says "being sentenced to Newgate became known as being 'sent up the river', an expression which carried over when it was replaced by the new Sing Sing Prison in Ossining, New York." (Newgate closed in 1829.) Either it originally referred to Newgate and is much older than 1891, or it dates only to 1891 and always referred to Sing Sing. Either the Sing Sing article is wrong about the origin and the date or the Greenwich Village article is wrong about the origin and the carry over.47.139.43.80 (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Greenwich Village article cites this page of this book, which provides no explanation for where it got that information. It runs counter to the highly-respected Etymonline and all other sources I can find... If you can find any more sources indicating Newgate was the first object of this saying, please provide them.

ɱ

(talk) 18:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Prisons

If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation and improvement of articles regarding specific prisons, internment camps, and detention centers here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sing Sing in Popular Culture

Should it be added? Well, the only thing I can think of now is Watchmen's Rorschach was incarcerated at Sing Sing, but that's all. I'm sure there're other references. Can we compile them and maybe have a section for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.176.121 (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sing Sing is mentioned in a couple of classic films, such as Manhattan Melodrama and in Breakfast at Tiffany's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.142.143 (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many classic Warner Brothers cartoons make reference to "sing song prison". I think that should be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.65.246 (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specifics? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SHEMP: You are now in New York! MOE: [moves to one side] I am now in New York. SHEMP: You are now in Sing Sing! MOE: [picks up chair, holding it in front of him as the bars of a prison cell] I am now in Sing Sing! SHEMP: You are now in Boston! MOE: I am now in Sing Sing! LARRY: You can’t get this guy out of Sing Sing! SHEMP: Good! That’s where he belongs, anyway. -- Flagpole Jitters (1957) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.191.251 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Marshall as Current Warden?

Louis Marshall's wiki page claimed he died in 1929 and was born in 1856... Now I've heard about abraham and how long he lived but this guy was a prison warden, in a 150 year rule, some doucher would have shanked him silly by now if it was possible to live that long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.64.42 (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Published prison profits

I came accross a small article published in the New York Tribune, January 2nd. 1860 which reports; 'TAXATION LIGHTENED BY CONVICT LABOR.',- 'Sing Sing, N.Y., Jan.1.- The total earnings at Sing Sing Prison for December amount to $18,261.69. The expenditures were $15,209.23. The profits are $3,052.46.' It can be viewed printed under TELEGRAPHIC NOTES, fifth column, here: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1880-01-02/ed-1/seq-1/ . It would appear the convicts earned their keep and the profits were taken by the taxman.MZionC (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images in the article

The images in any Wikipedia article should in some way enhance the text, either by illutsrating it, or by providing additional information or context which helps the reader to understand the subject. As such, all images need to be presented at a sufficient size to present that amount of information. If the reader is interested in more visual details, they can click thorugh to the image page, but we should never make it necessary for the reader to interrupt their reading of the text just to see what the image is. Postage-stamp sized images are, generally speaking, entirely useless unless they present logos or other very simple visual material; photographs with their relative complexity, must be shown at a size that provides good visibility so the reader can take them in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked this up under Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, "Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading)" Expanding the section could also expand the image size, or a gallery could be remade per WP:Image galleries. Personally I do not see much the reader would need to "Click through", you have two large images stuck on one side of the page right on top of each other verses two smaller images in context within the sections and it is generally a users preference on how big the thumb sizes are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only registered users can set preferences, but Wikipedia is meant to be a resource for everyone. The vast majority of people who see this article will see a teeny tiny little image. In any case, your last layout (which, by the way, created great blocks of empty white space) did not use an unsized thumb, you set the sizes for 100px.

Look, take my word for it, I do a lot of this work here, the layout is much better this way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the MoS is a guideline not hard-and-fast rules -- but in any case, you should note this section of the image page you quoted from:

The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed. The default thumbnail width is 220 pixels; users can adjust this in their preferences. An option such as "|300px|" resizes the image to the specified width in pixels, and "upright=1.2" (or "|frameless|upright=1.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8") wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use; an image can be wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone. The {{Wide image}} and {{Tall image}} templates display images that would otherwise be unreasonably wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:

Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "300px" ("upright=1.35").
Images in which detail is relatively unimportant (for example, a national flag), and which may need smaller sizes than usual.
Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart), and which may need larger sizes than usual.
Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional popular culture

http://www.gamershell.com/articles/994.html

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Driver-Parallel-Lines-Cheats-Part-2-and-Glitches-Wii-69368.shtml

Two sources for this trivia about the video game 78.144.145.141 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was asked to put this here and nobody has replied so...78.144.150.7 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many inmates?

The article contradicts itself. Near the beginning it says there are "about 1700" inmates. Further down in the "21st Century" section, it says there are more than 2000. How many inmates are there really? I tried finding this info on the NY DoC website, but couldn't find it. Also, the link for the cite for the 1700 number doesn't work now. Can someone else find the real number and correct the article? RudolfRed (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutionality of executions - Furman v. Georgia

Sing Sing#Executions claims In 1972, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was unconstitutional. However, Furman v. Georgia stated only that the application of capital punishment in an arbitrary and capricious manner was unconstitutional, in contrast to the minority opinion that capital punishment was cruel and unusual per se. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is it?

Is Sing Sing a federal prison or a state prison? --79.64.2.85 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of article

Sing Sing → Sing Sing Correctional Facility – Opening this discussion for debate regarding on whether the name of the article should just be "Sing Sing" or "Sing Sing Correctional Facility". I consider any move in need for discussion.-- NewYorkRepub100 (talk) 05:35, 06 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what's your rationale for feeling that the article should be moved? DonIago (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 9 external links on Sing Sing. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prison directors

Hey, the list of directors is way too long. Maybe it should be compressed? Chockmoos (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There's a separate list article anyhow.

ɱ

(talk) 18:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 December 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that the common name as determined by usage in RS is the current title. That that’s not the case for other prisons is irrelevant (and Alcatraz is a particularly inappropriate comparison as that name is commonly used for the island itself). (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 11:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sing Sing → Sing Sing Correctional Facility – The official title is recognizable while professional. No other correctional facility that I can find (even Alcatraz) is titled in shorthand. $ɱ$ (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose: Wikipedia prefers using WP:COMMONNAMEs and WP:CONCISE titles. Alcatraz redirects to Alcatraz Island, a notable island in a very prominent location – in San Francisco Bay just 1.25 miles from the city of San Francisco. There hasn't been a prison operating there for nearly 60 years. "Sing Sing", however, seems to primarily refer to the prison. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMONNAME doesn't omit a certain degree of formality and correctness. We don't title articles "JFK Airport", "NY Penn Station", or "Grand Central Station". WP:TONE is cited in the numerous times we've avoided moving Pennsylvania Station to Penn Station, despite the latter being the overwhelmingly common name used by those on the street. I'd like you to find a single other prison titled without its full name. And with Alcatraz, you're using a straw man argument. The island is only famous for its prison. Alcatraz could certainly be the title of the prison article based on COMMONNAME alone, but the full name is more formal and correct. Sing Sing could also refer to the village's early name, and is an alternate spelling of Sint Sinck, an indigenous group who lived there. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the island is only famous for its prison, then why does Alcatraz redirect to Alcatraz Island instead of to Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary? (And it wasn't me who brought up Alcatraz in the first place.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is actually pretty easy, and it has nothing to do with what you suspect. It's simply an oversight. Alcatraz Island was created in 2002, originally at the Alcatraz heading, but moved to its current title in 2003. An article on the prison itself wasn't actually created until 2012, and hasn't been moved since creation, as the name is proper and correct to identify it. So I think the redirect should be discussed, and I don't see evidence of a discussion having taken place. $ɱ$ (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is definitely a point worth considering. It's something that's talked about in WP:NCACRO ("consensus has rejected moving Central Intelligence Agency to its acronym, in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications"). Ostensibly that section is only about acronyms, but I think the same principles could be reasonably applied to other types of abbreviations. That said, before supporting this move, I'd like to see some actual evidence that the full title is preferred in professional/formal writing. Colin M (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination and per WP:CONSISTENT. A glance at Category:Prisons in New York (state) confirms that the main title header for every institution, with the single exception of Sing Sing, uses a full form. Other than a couple of institutions — New York Training School for Girls and Willard Drug Treatment Center — the full form used by all the others is "XXXXXX Correctional Facility". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONSISTENT and Roman Spinner. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's been known by various designations over the years, but its common name has always been Sing Sing. It's one of the few American prisons that's known all over the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject New York (state) has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's unfortunate that no evidence has yet been presented for how the subject is actually referred to by RS. To get the ball rolling, I searched the New York Times archives for "Sing Sing" and checked the first 5 articles that came up. All 5 referred to it in the title as just "Sing Sing". In the body, a couple of the articles mention the full name once near the beginning, but then consistently refer to it as just "Sing Sing" everywhere else. For example, there's a 1998 article titled "Sing Sing Anecdotes Find a Chronicler". Here are the portions that refer to the prison by name:

Sing Sing has become so ingrained in the culture... For more than 150 years, Sing Sing has overlooked the Hudson River...While the prison is very much part of the present -- known formally as the Sing Sing Correctional Facility and housing about 2,300 inmates -- it is also a historian's preoccupation... there had never been an academic history written about Sing Sing... For instance, Sing Sing was a tourist attraction in the 19th century... [16 more instances of "Sing Sing" omitted]

That's just some data from one publication, but one is more than zero. If anyone wants to do a more comprehensive review of different publications, I'd be happy to reconsider my view. Colin M (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per common name, discussion, Colin M's analysis, and the overwhelming use of the common name in the 'Further reading' and 'External links' sections. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per consistency, recognizability, etc. Red Slash 09:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.