Talk:Steamboat Bill, Jr.

message: The poster shows a comma after 'Steamboat Bill', so shouldn't the title with a comma be the main article? Unless the poster was wrong. Alpheus (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comma?

message: An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, :Image:Steamnboat Bill Jr poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Spartaz Humbug! 09:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Steamnboat Bill Jr poster.jpg listed for deletion 

message: The list immediately below solely includes names of actual people, and follows WP:BIOGRAPHY MOS. That MOS does not apply to movie titles of fictitious characters. It's apples and oranges. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We should have different guidelines for name styling depending on whether the person named is fictitious or not? Interesting idea... Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we should have different guidelines for film titles than for biographies.  --Tenebrae (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

text: In fact, according to your insinuation, the movie article Goodbye, Mr. Chips shouldn't have "Mr." in the title since WP:BIO guidelines wouldn't allow a biographical article to be named "Mr. Chips". Yet we do allow it for the fictional Mr. Freeze. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the difference between changing a title and changing the styling of a title is something you're missing here.  Nobody would support "Goodbye, Chips", for obvious reasons, just as they would not add "Mr." to a title of an article about a person.  Yet may wikipedians are opposing this move that changes title styling against the recommendations of the MOS, and away from what has been stable for over a decade. Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not Wikipedia MOS. That is the MOS of a completely different project than WikiProject Film. A project's MOS is for that project; it does not supersede WIkipedia guidelines and policies.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a project involved here other than WikiProject Film?  Which? I've never heard of projects having their own MOS.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you asked. Yes, indeed: The guideline that does without the comma is from another project entirely; it's from the WP:BIOGRAPHY MOS. (And actually, even it doesn't require that there be no comma in every case!) --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-precedents

message: Previous discussions of the application of WP:JR to non-biography article titles have all closed in favor of no comma:
* Talk:USS Frank E. Petersen Jr.#Requested move 7 April 2016 
* Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. Day#Requested move 22 April 2016
* Talk:Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Library#Requested move 4 May 2016
* Talk:John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway#Requested move 15 May 2016
* Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site#Requested move 28 June 2016
* Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue#Requested move 01 July 2016
* Talk:Hank Williams Jr.'s Greatest Hits#Requested move 10 September 2016
The mixed usage in sources, including movie posters and books, and long time stability at the original title without a comma, suggest that there is no difficulty in using WP's consensus style on this one, too.  The move to add a comma is at odds with very established consensus on this. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Those were named after Martin Luther King Jr., John D. Rockefeller Jr., Frank E. Petersen Jr., and Hank Williams Jr.. Somehow, the consensus used consistency with those names. This matter seems a little different, and nothing else is named after the movie title, is there? --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. No person, living or dead, is described by the title. The film is named Steamboat Bill, Jr., just as other films have names. The Shining, Citizen Kane, Breakfast at Tiffany's, and tens of thousands of films have names. We are an encyclopedia and this is the name of a film. An iconic film, a masterpiece, a historic work of art known and honored worldwide. Lord have mercy. Randy Kryn 03:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Iconic film, honored worldwide, fictional character, widely mentioned in sources, we can all agree.  But a lot of sources don't use a comma.  We also don't need to, and might as well follow WP style in WP:JR. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we should not follow a guideline intended for biographies and people. This is about a title. And most sources do use the comma, especially the ones that count most - the film itself, copyright registration, etc. Titles should be accurately represented on WP. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Gothicfilm — that is not WP style but simply the style of one project, WP:BIO, that has nothing to do with movie titles and does not supersede WP:COMMONNAME. Addressing your claim that "a lot of sources don't use a comma", that is patent misdirection: The vast, vast majority of sources do use the comma, including the film itself, its copyright registration, TCM, IMDb and perhaps most significantly besides the film itself, the Library of Congress' National Film Registry. Says Steamboat Bill, Jr. right there. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And brought to you from the same National Film Registry we have this interestingly titled gem which, nonetheless, we render as named. Randy Kryn 21:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Precedents

message: Some editors are taking great exception to Nyttend's aggressive, threatening text in closing the discussion above. His assertions are rejected, and he was stepping beyond WP:ADMIN in making them. I have written to this editor directly detailing the objection. Tony (talk)  02:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: He has rejected the suggestion to retract his biased close, so it's time to open a WP:MR. Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree with the above two editors. For goodness' sakes, why would anyone argue in favor of deliberately falsifying a movie title so that it adheres to a WP:BIO style guideline that does not apply to WP:FILM. I don't understand why that's so important to these editors. Could they explain, please? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure nobody wants to deliberately falsify anything.  Are you accusing Rotten Tomatoes of that, too? Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Rotten Tomatoes is hardly a journalistic site, so there it's a matter of sloppiness and low standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be better than that. If you want proper standards, look to the Library of Congress. That's the standard to which we should strive. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think anyone would want to deliberately falsify a movie title—I had assumed that the people opposed to the move were unaware of the proper title.  Now that it has been pointed out (National Film Registry, US Copyright Office), it should be clear that the proper title has a comma.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectionable closure 

message: The movie uses a comma in the title, so it is appropriate in the cast section. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is. MOS:JR does not cover fictional names, it is biographical and pertains to names of real people. Thanks for your observation. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think it's absurd that a guideline on how to style names would be ignored when the names are of fictional people, just because the guideline is on a page about biographies?  I don't think there was ever any discussion that led to the conclusion that you're claiming, even though there was a sort consensus to style titles of shows per their original "on-screen" punctuation. Dicklyon (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , it's not absurd at all. A fictional character is a creation of an author, playwright, screenwriter, or what have you. They create a work of art, and within that work of art there are "characters" which transmit and define the story. They are not real people, and their names are not those of real people. They are characters. If the character is named "Steamboat Bill, Jr.", for example (I picked the name out of a hat or the air or somewhere), and that name is on a written page or is shown on film or tape, then that is the name assigned to a character. If it contains a comma before the 'Jr.' then that is the characters name. I fail to understand how this is absurd, although coming back to the comma wars seems to be. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's absurd because it's so different from how we treat names of real people.  Most of the authors and creators of these characters probably had never given any thought to how the name might be styled in print, nor thought about how the recommended and commonly used styles for such names might evolve over decades.  Being fictional doesn't make a name an exception to modern English usage and styling. Dicklyon (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they thought of the name appearing in print - in the case of print media, they wrote it as is, and if the character's name appears in a screenplay or television script, they knew it was going to appear on screen in the credits. Maybe writers working today might not use a comma before Jr., or maybe they would (I see examples of ", Jr." often, as I am now trained, like some monkey in one of those tiny top hats seeking coins, to notice it). Comma-Jr.'s are all over the place, in the past, present, and I assume they will be used by writers far into the future. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

text: The guideline says it's only preferred. Also, the title of the article has a comma. It would be inconsistent to omit it in the article itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

text: We don't treat fictional names any differently from non-fictional ones. The seeming problem in this case is that we also don't change titles of published works.  So we run into a consistency conflict no matter what: Either usage in this article will conflict with that in others, or usage in this article for the character will conflict with usage in the work title.  These kinds of conflicts are inevitable but fortunately not very frequent.While the default is to go with consistency inside the article,  we have made an error.  If you read the original RM discussion, which didn't at that time come to a consensus to keep the comma in our article title (and thus in our treatment of the work title), concrete proof was provided that the work was also spelled Steamboat Bill Jr. without the comma, both in the copyright holder's marketing materials  and in independent reliable sources about the work (cited in bulk in the original RM). When it was active, MoviePosterDb.com images showed that  of the different posters produced for this film were without the comma. The idea that the work title  include the comma is patent nonsense, pure reality-denialism.  There is no rationale for including the here. Neither the RS nor the rights-holders have ever used it consistentlyErgo, the comma should be completely removed from the prose and from our article title.  I suspected this new dispute would happen, after the "give me comma-Jr or else" camp narrowly evaded MOS:JR in the old RM.  Such a conflict was obviously predictable, and never should have happened. The closer of the RM did a vote count instead of looking at the WP:P&G and WP:RS arguments in favor of removing the comma, which were much stronger. MoS is never trumped by a simple majority of RS's spelling; it has to be a near-uniform consistency in RS. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Who cares what some secondary sources say? Ultimately the correct spelling is right there on the screen in big, bold letters. You don't change direct quotes, and you don't alter titles of works just to suit an optional guideline. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. When the film's title card was provided it showed that the film's name includes the comma. The work of art, in this case one of the most honored films in film history, comes complete with its name, and that's what the closer found. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Jeeze, I just noticed the lengthy page move discussion above. So why exactly are we beating this dead horse? It is not "resting", "pining for the fjords" or "stunned"; it "is no more", "has ceased to be", "kicked the bucket, shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comma-tion 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture :File:Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928).webm, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 4, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-10-04. Any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928).webm]] scheduled for POTD