Style manuals offer their opinions on styling issues. Without recasting, if we were to use a city-state and full date as an adjective, can we eliminate the suggested comma after the state and the year? To me they are speed bumps and definitely inhibit the flow of the sentence. Please, no recasts. 1. The July 13, 2005 issue of Newsweek sold like hot cakes. (instead of: The July 13, 2005, issue of Newsweek...) 2. The Tampa, Florida rock band made its official debut. (instead of: The Tampa, Florida, rock band...) We certainly wouldn't write "the Florida, rock band" in the absence of a city preceding the word Florida. 3. Paris, France is a beautiful vacation spot. (instead of: Paris, France, is a beautiful vacation spot.) We certainly wouldn't write "France, is a beautiful vacation spot" in the absence of a city preceding the word France. 4. Tallahassee, Florida was enjoyable! (instead of: Tallahassee, Florida, was enjoyable!) Same logic as above. 5. February 6, 1969 is my brother's date of birth. (instead of: February 6, 1969, is my brother's date of birth.) Same logic as above. Does anyone agree with my bolded examples, despite the guidance of style guides to include a comma after the state and year? After all, the state and year are essential info, so why put a comma after each? Thank you.
there isn't any 'suggested comma' after any of those... and a comma would be incorrect in any of the examples... i don't know what style guide you think calls for one, but if it does, it's wrong... that said, if the place/date forms a clause that requires a comma after it, that's a different story... and not the case there... but a comma would be needed here: Paris, France, where we spent our honeymoon, is a beautiful vacation spot. or July 13, 2005, the date of the Newsweek issue in which my article was published, was the day my son was born.
Chicago 16 requires those commas. I disagree with them. Good. So you agree with all my bolded examples. Deal.
