Talk:Hank Williams Jr.'s Greatest Hits

Requested move 10 September 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus in this discussion is supported by inconsistent sources, the guideline and by a trend toward consistency in this type of person-name title. This is not an easy decision since opposition to this rename was both elegant and eloquent. (non-admin closure) Paine ^u/c 10:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Moved without discussion, against consensus as expressed at WP:JR. – Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 13:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

from WP:RMT: Source supporting current name. Also WP:JR never establishes that names of works are to be moved, only those of people, and JR even says "[use comma] only for cases in which the name with the suffix is well-attested in reliable sources", which is. JR is a guideline, not a policy, and JR also includes the text that is "preferred", but not, by any mean, enforced. Dicklyon tries to enforce it, on the other hand, as he is a promotor of JR. Because of this, it is his job to demnostrate the name of the album, as it was published in 1985 excludes the comma. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 07:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Dicklyon and Tbhotch. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 13:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the name of the album contains a comma. I guess I'm some kind of traditionalist in that I think the real names of creative works should be the titles of their articles in an encyclopedia. Longer names are often trimmed, and "The" is often removed, and other style changes occur on some books and albums. This title isn't long, nor complicated in a stylistic way, so at least to a comma-challenged-traditionalist it seems fine. Randy Kryn 14:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Like the artist name, these album names are often given without a comma (see for example [1], [2]). Rendering it as if Hank Williams is in apposition to Jr.'s Greatest Hits doesn't help anybody. That's why we have WP:JR. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dicklyon. Interesting, you see the construct of the ", Jr." to be in apposition to the lead-in name. I never thought of it anywhere close to that. I've always seen it as a descriptor, as in "Hank Williams", and then the descriptor ", Jr." which tells us that although his name is Hank Williams, he is not the Hank Williams that older people remember, but is ", Jr.", the son of the other Hank Williams. That's why I objected to the removal of some of those commas, because his name, as I see it, is also Hank Williams, and not Hank Williams Jr. Randy Kryn 17:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were a descriptor, it would be treated the same way: "Hank Williams – the second one – played at my parents' bar" (true story, but notice how the dashes are paired); "Hank Williams, my neighbor, is a space alien (not a true story in either part, but note that the commas come in pairs). However, the very few style guides that address the matter at all are divided about the idea that an apostrophe-s possessive construction takes the place of the second comma, just as a period/stop, question mark, exclamation point, semicolon, or colon would. Because there's some doubt on the matter, we should write to avoid such a case when we can (as the footnote at MOS:JR says), but in this case we can't since the 's is part of the title. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for any title that is consistently published (versus written about) with the comma, on the principle that we don't change the names of published works, within MOS:TM bounds (e.g., we would normalize GREATEST HITS or gReAtEsT hItS to Greatest Hits). If a work has been released both with and without the comma, or appears spelled both ways on the same release (e.g. front cover versus spine), then go ahead and normalize to MOS:JR's comma-free presentation. This has nothing to do with commas and JR in particular. If an album was called "The Greatest Hits" in one issue, and was reissued as "Greatest Hits", we would drop the "The" per WP:THE, but retain it if it was always The Greatest Hits, regardless whether media sources writing about it bothered to get it correct or not. To come back to "comma-junior", I think this is the compromise that comma-favoring "American traditionalists" get. As a topic of modern notability, Hank Williams Jr. is Hank Williams Jr. in modern, mainstream written English. But in 1982, he put out an album called Hank Williams, Jr.'s Greatest Hits and that's simply a historical fact we shouldn't treat in a revisionist manner [unless/until the actual copyright holder changes the title in a new version], just like Charles Cotton's 1674 precursor to Hoyle's Rules was The Compleat Gamester, not "The Complete Gamester". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Hank Williams Jr. and Friends should probably have a comma in it; I see two released versions, both with a comma. By contrast, The Best of Hank Williams Jr. Volume One: Roots and Branches was published without one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I understand SMcCandlish's argument, but to me Dicklyon's solution is better, with some usage out there to support it: I cannot abide by the jerked separation of "Junior and His Greatest Hits", even though if you stare at it long enough, you see the intended meaning. Tony (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While Tbhotch is correct that WP:JR doesn't stricktly apply to titles of works, it does show an internal style preference for "omission of the comma before Jr." unless commas are "clearly and consistently preferred for a particular subject in current, reliable sources". In this case, sources are split; some use the comma,[3][4][5] and many others don't.[6][7][8] The covers of the two albums even differ on the comma. Given the lack of consistency, we're better off falling back on our own style guide, which is already used at the main Hank Williams Jr. article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pure WP:CONSISTENCY. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, with all of the "Support" comments it seems a reminder of what SMcCandlish wrote above is in order. His "Oppose" comment comes with the note that a "title that is consistently published (versus written about) with the comma, on the principle that we don't change the names of published works, within MOS:TM bounds." This album has not been published with other than the comma, and thus this should be an easy decision to leave it at that. Randy Kryn 00:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it has been published without comma by Billboard (there are also a bunch more Billboard examples), All Music Guide to Country, The Rolling Stone Album Guide. There are also quite a few that style it with 2 commas, again supporting the idea that it's a matter of style; e.g. [9], [10]. Dicklyon (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, we go by published secondary sources, and those don't consistently use the comma.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, this appears to miss the point which was being made by Randy Kryn, which relates to publication of the album itself, not to publication about the album. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and my apology for not being clear enough. The work of art itself is named, published, then duplicated, shipped and stocked as a finished copy. Thanks for clarifying. Randy Kryn 1:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, but secondary sources are still more important than what appears on the album cover (a primary source). Even on the album covers there's variance; for example, here the comma is excluded in Hank Williams Jr's Greatest Hits Volume 2. When there's this much variance, we need to consider our internal style recommendations.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is not a variance. Volume 2 is a separate album, a separate work of art, and has nothing to do with this page. Randy Kryn 12:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, Volume 2 is part of this move request.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I stand corrected. If the name of the second album is commaless then I would support moving that one, but the image on the page seems unclear (there looks like a little squiggle after 'Williams' but I can't tell for sure). The first album does contain a comma, so these two albums shouldn't be taken together as one support or oppose option, they are two separate works of art and each should stand on its own set of facts so that there still is no variance. A similar case are the Simon & Garfunkel albums, which are a mix between 'Simon & Garfunkel' and 'Simon and Garfunkel'. There the variance is large enough that a good case can be made to change the group's name to include 'and' instead of '&', but each of there individual albums would still contain one of the two. Randy Kryn 12:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there are (at least) two versions of the Volume 2 album cover: This one used on Wikipedia, which isn't clear if there's a comma or not, and the one I linked to used at Allmusic and elsewhere, which doesn't have a comma. Given the variance in both the covers and the reliable sources discussing the album, we have to pick one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Then I Support changing the name of second album, but still Oppose changing the name of the first album. Hopefully a skilled closer will tell the difference, as listing these two albums together in the nom is something like mixing Apples, Jr. and Oranges Jr. Randy Kryn 15:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per Tbhotch, SMcCandlish & Randy Kryn. It's the actual title of the album. WP:JR is for names of persons, not for names of things which may include names of persons. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Although I'm fairly close to the fence. McCandlish makes his usual impressive argument, but it could be overthink too. In the end, it comes down to two pragmatic/practical points for me. 1. The comma is a style element. 2. Precious little reader benefit in all this fine distinction, so we have far better things to occupy our limited time. I think over time readers will learn that the absence of that comma doesn't necessarily mean it was absent in the title of the work, if they even notice it or care about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I thought I was close to the fence too, until I reread the oppose votes and compared them to wp:official names. There's a strong, consistent principle underlying all of our naming conventions that usage is the number one criterion, and on the evidence above, that makes the WP:JR guideline right on the money in this case. It's no big deal but a clear choice IMO. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cuchullain and others. Given that no style predominates in reliable sources, and WP:JR gives us a guideline as to how to handle this, we should go with that. This is the first time I've voted in a JR case, but I think it's getting to the point now, with so many articles having been moved, that the few remaining outliers are violations of WP:CONSISTENCY. — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, this is not an outlier. They are both the names of created works of art, one contains a comma and the other doesn't consistently. We are an encyclopedia. These albums are works of art. We should refer to them by the name applied to them by the artist (as long as they are determinable). That's what an encyclopedia would do. Randy Kryn 11:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.