→Requested move 15 December 2016: *'''Support'''. While other stylizations within a film's title, as it appears on screen, may be debatable, punctuation should be reproduced in its exact form. ''Steamboat Bill, Jr.'' is easily available for screen
::::::::This is a wonderful list; thank you. I suspect some have them onscreen and some do not. I think in the case of any ''Sherlock Jr.'' discrepancy we would go by the Wikipedia-wide MOS directive [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 20:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::This is a wonderful list; thank you. I suspect some have them onscreen and some do not. I think in the case of any ''Sherlock Jr.'' discrepancy we would go by the Wikipedia-wide MOS directive [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 20:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
Closing as '''moved'''; local consensus is in favor of moving. Let this be a firm warning: imposition of a MOS page to articles not under that page's scope, without firm consensus at talk, is disruptive and will result in sanctions if repeated. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 16:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
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)[reply]
-- I agree-- see the still of the title-- it's clearly 'Steamboat Bill, Jr.' Can someone with more advanced Wiki editing experience please fix this & delete the 'directs from' page? Thanks. SaturnCat (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Steamnboat Bill Jr poster.jpg listed for deletion
Oppose per all the precedents relative to WP:JR, many of which were not person names. This article has been comma-free since it created 5 years ago; no reason to go opposite of guidelines now. Not sure what Steel1943 means by "the printed article title (with a comma)"; if he means the styling from some of the movie posters, we'd need to do all-caps, too. I notice the Rotten Tomatoes does all caps, no comma, like this poster; I guess that's their style choice; but let's stick with WP style per the MOS. It's not so unusual in books, either, so not like we're rejecting any outside consensus on this even. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dicklyon and overwhelming precedent. Any editor is free to propose clear exception rules for creative works, but that is yet to be done and I would probably be in the Oppose camp on that. The community consensus, which has been reaffirmed again and again, is that this comma is purely a style issue. ―Mandruss☎06:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - WP:JR is misapplied here. That guideline is for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. This is not a biography of a person. This is a movie title. While "overwhelming precedent" is claimed, this does not appear to be true: Movie titles with comma abound, and the only major example of another movie with "Jr." is Keaton's own Sherlock Jr. which — as seen on the title card 14 seconds in here — does not have an onscreen comma. Having a title be factually incorrect because of an MOS guideline that doesn't even apply to movie titles seems misguided. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, here is the original move request: This is not a subject person's name, where MOS:JR would apply. Rather, the comma is part of a formal, proper-noun film title, like Cry, the Beloved Country. The onscreen title card, depicted in the article, clearly shows the title as Steamboat Bill, Jr. So do standard film reference sources as the Steamboat Bill, Jr. listing at the TCM Movie Database and at IMDb, such books as Princeton University Press' The Theater and Cinema of Buster Keaton and New York Times Essential Library: Children's Movies, and, perhaps most significantly outside of the actual title card, at the Library of Congress' National Film Registry. [1]. Having no comma is not only inaccurate according to the film's onscreen title, but out of step with every major source. Additionally, the only discussion on the talk page [up to this current discussion] is in favor of the comma. [See "Comma?" above]. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my comments I linked several books, just as authoritative, that do without the comma. This is an issue of editorial style. As I've shown, it is not out of step with every major source. Dicklyon (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support, per Tenebrae, this is not a biography but a Wikipedia page-verified real-world name of a work of art. And not just any work of art, but one recognized as a masterpiece. The US National Film Registry and other film-importance lists honor it, and specific scenes have become icons. If there is an exception to a guideline which may be used to argue that a real-world artwork which contains a comma should be renamed on the world's foremost encyclopedia, then this is one where an exception should be made. The external film-related links on the page which I've checked, with the one exception cited by Dicklyon, use the comma. On such an iconic artwork, WP:COMMONSENSE should probably prevail. Randy Kryn15:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does implement mean here? Invoke? Certainly WP:TITLECHANGES argues against this change, so why did you support? I don't see the relevance of the other links. And yes, majority vote of sources on style is not enough; WP have a style of its own, by consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus in previous RfCs concerned more about biographies. Why does the consensus extend to non-biographical parts not named after other people? Checking history logs, the comma was added but then removed. Struck out WP:TITLECHANGES; I thought the article was originally "Steamboat Bill, Jr." WP:DIVIDEDUSE says that, if usage were divided, the least surprising title should be used. Is omitting the comma less surprising than having one for the movie title? Also, American English might still encourage using commas before Jr. George Ho (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed the non-bio precedents in the sub-section immediately below. And per previous deliverations, it was shown that the vast majority of modern American guides recommend NOT using comma before Jr., starting with the 1979 3rd edition of Strunk & White's The Elements of Style. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, newest (4th) agrees, as do almost all other modern guides, American or otherwise. And this is not an existence rationale, but a record of discussions that make the consensus clear. Not sure that you mean by "real-life names"; we're not deviating from the name or from styling that can be found in numerous reliable sources; just not letting sources votes on our style. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Chicago Style alongside A Manual for Writers says preserve any punctuation that is part of the work's title, especially in sentences. --George Ho (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A short answer to George_Ho's "Why does the consensus extend to non-biographical parts": Because style rules exist for consistency, so applying them inconsistently defeats their purpose. All WP rules are applied according to their spirit not whether someone can dig up what they think is a clever technicality. We don't treat fictional character naming differently from real-world bio subject naming. (We routinely apply the "A. B. not "A.B." spaced-initials rule to fictional character, for example.) This case is not special in any way; there is no IAR to be found here. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with George Ho. WP:JR applies specifically to biographies. We're talking here about the actual, for-real, legal, copyrighted title of a work of fiction. Apples and oranges. Nowhere is there policy that says MOS for one project, Biography, supersedes and vetoes everything else in Wikipedia. There is policy that says we be factually accurate, however. We cannot go around changing titles.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I thought nobody will contest the move because it is very clear that the title with the comma is correct and WP:JR doesn't apply here because this is not a biography, that's why I moved it without opening RM discussion. Comma is used in all external links, except rotten tomatoes, and most of the references in the article. According to WP:JR, "comma can be used in cases where it is clearly and consistently preferred for a particular subject in current, reliable sources", so even if WP:JR applied here, it would be OK to move the article to the title with comma after 'Bill'. Fuortu (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, this poster this just never happened, right? The producers of the film were not wrong about the name of their own work. The clear fact of the matter is they did not care if the comma was present or not, and used both spellings, as do RS about the film. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They probably didn't use the comma in that poster as it wouldn't look correct because 'Jr.' is slightly above and smaller, and they were highlighting 'Steamboat Bill'; you probably won't notice 'Jr.' immediately at first glance. You'll notice that they have comma whenever 'Jr.' is noticeable. I did Google search for 'Steamboat Bill Jr.' and found comma after 'Bill' in the search results 9 out of 10 times. We should not expect every source to use comma. In many cases, there will be no 100% consistency in how sources write things. Fuortu (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It has been demonstrated that there are many RS that do not use the comma, and, therefore, given that there is no overwhelming consistency of usage of the comma in RS, there is no reason to deviate from the WP:JR guidance. RGloucester — ☎01:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no precedents. Those are the names of people. This is the name of a film. The film's name has nothing to do with a person. If Cry, the Beloved Country retains a comma (because it is the name of a film) then this has to as well, no matter how many !Votes appear. Randy Kryn05:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Randy Kryn. A WP:BIOGRAPHY MOS guideline for articles about people does not apply to the formal title of a movie, and certainly not to that of a movie about a completely fictitious character. Adding insult to injury, this is the title of one of the most famous and important movie comedies, an iconic masterpiece that has just been inducted into the National Film Registry — where the Library of freaking Congress properly spells its onscreen title Steamboat Bill, Jr. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, the reason the film's fame and acclaim is mentioned, at least in my thinking, is a concern for Wikipedia. Changing the name of an iconic film (a film, not a person, something that seems lost to the opposing editors here) harms Wikipedia, in my opinion. As an encyclopedia if we can't get the name of a famous film right then that, to some degree, may call the sites other facts into question. Randy Kryn15:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I previously supported retention of the "junior comma" in one case of another work's title because the publisher/distributor consistently titled it with the comma, always. That isn't the case here, since the movie was also advertised without the comma, indicating no authorial intent to require it. By contrast, the question mark is mandatory in the title of the film Casual Sex?, since its meaning would be radically altered without it. This comma has no meaning whatsoever in this construction. And we have evidence that various RS drop it, so it is definitely optional. It's conventional (in all publications) to normalize minor stylistic quirks, without a second thought, to a house rule, including letter casing (many style guides require a specific convention), changing font styling (e.g., to add italics around a genus and species in a journal article title, and to drop all font effects other than sometimes semantic emphasis if removing it would change the meaning), normalizing the title and subtitle separator (usually from a dash or comma to the now-standard colon), etc. Optional, meaningless punctuation is no different, and is not comparable to major editorial changes that are not done (except possibly with square-bracketed editorial markup or an ellipsis), like spelling (e.g., The Compleat Gamester is not transformed into The Complete Gamester), word order, grammar, missing words, redundant words, redundant letters (see Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song), etc. PS: The "bio naming rules don't apply to fictional characters" suggestion is clearly false. WP:RM and WP:CFDroutinely apply the same article and category naming rules to real and fictional persons, because the result of not doing so would be unacceptably confusing and inconsistent for both readers and editors, and a source of frequent strife. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the above editor is posting multiple times, I'll reiterate to his comment here: WP:JR applies specifically to biographies. We're talking here about the actual, for-real, legal, copyrighted title of a work of fiction. Apples and oranges. Nowhere is there policy that says MOS for one project, Biography, supersedes and vetoes everything else in Wikipedia. There is policy that says we be factually accurate, however. We cannot go around changing titles. I'm not sure what the editor is finding at WP:Requested moves or the completely irrelevant WP:Categories for discussion that says an encyclopedia should knowingly falsify a film's title.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as a phrase this would normally be written as "junior Steamboat Bill", putting the qualifying adjective first. The comma in the rearranged usage as a proper name makes it clear to the reader that 'junior' is not the noun of the sentence, but is a qualifier. Usage for qualifiers at the end of a phrase is comma separation, as in "I enjoyed it, mostly" or "we lost, however". It appears also the basis on which this film was most commonly marketed.IanB2 (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not acquainted well enough with the naming guidelines to determine whether they apply to this particular case but the film was registered for copyright as Steamboat Bill, Jr. at the US copyright office, so the move would be consistent with the legally registered title. Also, a Google Books search while not conclusive seems to favor the comma. On that note the proper title and the most common variant in reliable sources is the version with the comma. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is still under copyright the original term will have been renewed. If you look at the list you will see an entry labelled "Steamboat Bill, Jr. / directed by Charles F. Reisner." which mentions the original registration: "Previous Registration: Silent motion picture prev. reg. 1928, LP 25362." While it is possible they altered the punctuation of the title when the copyright was renewed I find it somewhat implausible. Betty Logan (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a work of fiction with a specific title, not a biography. The film's title card (per copies here and here) uses the comma. That seems like a fairly conclusive primary source on top of all the secondaries (like the National Film Archive) already mentioned above. —Luis (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Betty Logan's finds referenced above about how this subject's title is stylized in the US copyright office. I just confirmed the information provided, and that should be the reference which the title of this subject is stylized on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per much of the above, principally that WP should be accurate to what a title actually is, and a guideline for biographies should not be applied to titles of works of fiction. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While other stylizations within a film's title, as it appears on screen, may be debatable, punctuation should be reproduced in its exact form. Steamboat Bill, Jr. is easily available for viewing via above links, while screenshots of its opening credits can be seen at annyas.com/screenshots/updates/steamboat-bill-jr-1928-buster-keaton/. —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)05:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-precedents
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Precedents
Previous discussions of the application of WP:JR to non-biography article titles have all closed in favor of no comma:
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)[reply]
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 Kryn03:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As I and other editors have noted, it is not encyclopedic to knowingly falsify a movie's title because of a Wikipedia style guideline that does not apply outside WP:BIOGRAPHY. What we have precedent for is correctly and encyclopedically including movie-title punctuation where it verifiably exists. For example:
This is because we respect the creators' choices, we do not want to misrepresent those choices, and we want to be encyclopedically accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the movie creators really made a choice that they cared about in this case, why do some of the movie posters omit the comma? Even at that time, when the with-comma style was more popular, it was treated as a style issue, not as a decision of the creator, who probably never thought about it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Movie posters aren't designed by screenwriters. And, clearly, Keaton and his writers thought enough of the distinction that they specifically titled their movies Steamboat Bill, Jr. and Sherlock Jr. without the comma. Let's have some respect for the creative process ... because for whatever reason, Dick Wolf chose to call his show Law & Order and not Law and Order. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting theory. You don't think that variation just means they didn't think about commas at all? Is there any support in sources for the concept that they cared about that minor styling issue on either one? Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's POV speculation. I am not speculating or theorizing but simply stating what is. And what is, is that they chose to spell the titles differently. Aside from any issues of factual accuracy, we need to respect their creative choices.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I.e., my saying above "not that it matters". Screenwriters don't create posters. Some of the X-Men movies have posters that aren't the exact movie titles either.
And bringing up posters is an attempt at smokescreening, since there's no argument about the actual title of Steamboat Bill, Jr., according to the onscreen title, the copyright notice, the National Film Registry, etc. The only argument seems to be that some editors want an MOS guideline from a completely unrelated project to be applied here in a way that knowingly falsifies a movie title. Why would an encyclopedia want to knowingly falsify a film title in order to slavishly follow another project's guideline that doesn't apply outside that project?
The posters were introduced first by those wanting to move to add a comma. It makes sense to refute their logic by pointing out that other posters are without the comma. No smokescreening, but I agree that posters are a weak source, which is why I cite so many other sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've cited two books without the comma. I've cited two books with a comma, from Princeton University Press and New York Times Publishing. Does a small percentage without the comma exist? Yes, as with everything. But A) that doesn't affect WP:COMMONNAME and B) there is no source anyone can have that's more significant than the film itself, its copyright notice, TCM, IMDb and the Library of Congress National Film Registry, just to name a few off the top of my head.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wonderful list; thank you. I suspect some have them onscreen and some do not. I think in the case of any Sherlock Jr. discrepancy we would go by the Wikipedia-wide MOS directive WP:COMMONNAME. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as moved; local consensus is in favor of moving. Let this be a firm warning: imposition of a MOS page to articles not under that page's scope, without firm consensus at talk, is disruptive and will result in sanctions if repeated. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
![[15]](http://www.stjohnsorganproject.com/uploads/1/2/4/9/12494409/6157081_orig.jpg?458){kind=link}
![[16]](http://www.stjohnsorganproject.com/uploads/1/2/4/9/12494409/7771763_orig.jpg?399){kind=link}