Talk:Half-Blood Blues

Title

My copy has the title Half Blood Blues on both cover and title page. This is also what's given on the official Man Booker and Orange prize shortlists. Is there a reason for the hyphen? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Espresso Addict. I sent you an email recently, I am not sure if you've seen it. It related to your question regarding the hyphenated title. I notice you moved the title, and I support your bold initiative. I am glad you had the tools and the initiative to correct the wp:dyk hook as well. For stability I intend to simply research the matter a bit more, but in a week or so, I suspect we will need to discuss the move, for clarification and perhaps precedent. Currently the wp:mos is rather weak in addressing this scenario, and it is not unique. If you are aware of a discussion that addresses this kind of title, I am certainly interested in knowing the insight you have gleaned in research. Until our next; be well.  --My76Strat (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the original UK edition had no hyphen, and that it was added for the US version:

• UK version without hyphen: UK newspaper articles: The Independent (Ireland), The Guardian (UK). Amazon UK has no hyphen in the cover and in the text inside[1] Google books has the same version with no hyphens [2]. .
• Amazon US has the the US edition, with hyphen in the cover and in the text inside, in paperback[3] and in ebook[4].

--Enric Naval (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like pretty much an WP:ENGVAR issue. Perhaps WP:RETAIN the original non-stub, American, hyphenated version? Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's an ENGVAR issue, then you should take care that the author is Canadian, not American. The Canadian edition doesn't have a hyphen (the Canadian cover is the image in the infobox). Amazon Canada has the hyphen-less of the ebook[5], just like UK.

RETAIN should apply when a spelling has been "established", but the American spelling has stayed for less than 1 month.... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Canadian focus was intended from the beginning. I do find it interesting however that the author identifies the book with a hyphen on her official website.[6] Her Canadian publisher hyphenates it as well.[7] These were the sources I used in making some of the original determinations. Another Canadian site,[8] and a Canadian news outlet reporting on the Giller prize win.[9]. And:[10], [11], [12], and there are many others. Sometimes the cover shown has no hyphen, yet it is still presented in running prose with the hyphen. That is why I am interested in hearing as many opinions as possible to reach a thoughtful answer. Several good things have been stated already, I am thankful. --My76Strat (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Amusingly, the writer's official website uses hyphens everywhere in the text, but the only images for the book are two hyphen-less covers.

The Canadian publisher shows a cover with hyphen and the awards received[13], but the publisher made some editions without hyphen and without the awards[14]. Maybe the first edition in Canada didn't have a hyphen, in later editions they added the hyphen and the awards? The UK publisher doesn't seem to have added hyphens[15]. This means that it wouldn't be an ENGVAR issue, since the Canadian publisher has ended up using hyphen too. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, RETAIN and ENGVAR don't reference the national ties of the original author, nor do they give weight to original editions (correct me if I'm wrong). The original author used the hyphen consistently, even though it is not in the album cover photo of the first Canadian edition. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it more likely that the original author didn't use a hyphen for her original text, and that the Canadian publishers decided to add one when people complained. (According to her list of editions, the first editions were in UK and Canada, both hyphen-less until it was "fixed" in Canada). But those are details. Personally, I don't see any problem with hyphenating the name. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

My analysis:

1. The standard form (going by most major guides, including our own WP:MOS), would be "Half-Blood Blues". This is so whether we consider the whole as formed from three independent components, or consider "half~blood" as a preformed component. British SOED uses a hyphen even for "half-blood" alone. US Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary has "half blood" as an entry, but lists it as a noun. It would be normal to add a hyphen when it is used as a premodifier (as in the present case). Even The Chicago Manual of Style, which is reducing its advocacy of hyphens, agrees (see examples like "a middle-class neighborhood" in CMOS16, 7.85, p. 377).
2. By convention, the definitive citation form of a title is the one given on the verso (back) of the title page. Very often indeed, that form is modified on the cover or the title page (for display purposes), and elsewhere, and in promotions of the book. That has happened in the present case.
3. The present case seems complicated by there being two editions, for two major varieties of English. However, nothing about those varieties has any serious bearing on this question of style.
4. There is no overwhelming claim to be made for the first version (whatever it is discovered to be exactly; see my point 2). Second thoughts are often better; and the addition of the hyphen may be taken as a conscious emendation.
5. Usage by the author in other contexts is unedited, and not of primary importance here. But it supports the case for the hyphen.
6. This all illustrates one function of MOS: to determine forms when, as usual, "reliable sources" are reliable for content but not for style.

My conclusion:

• Move the article to Half-Blood Blues. This should be a technical RM only.

Noetica^Tea? 03:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No TechRM needed. I simply moved back over the recent non-consensual move. Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Good. I thought there might be some sort of redirect blocking that. Noetica^Tea? 06:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• The title should, by basic grammatical rules and logic, be Half-blood Blues. We do not, ever, capitalize after a hyphen in English, unless the hyphen-following element is itself an independent proper name (e.g. Half-Stephen Blues). Titles of published works are not magically exempt, and you'll find that professionally edited and published ones very rarely violate that rule (and that reviewers, sellers, etc. of them will often correct the typos when referring to such improperly titled works). It is not an ENGVAR issue; there is no English language dialect in which this is not a basic rule of punctuation. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 16:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for that fresh analysis. It is within our prerogative to correct the styling of this title in the manner you suggest, though I appreciate that rather than moving the title, you appear to have left this as an option for further discussion, which I endorse. Thanks for bringing your insight into this discussion. --My76Strat (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  Hum, is there any RS that doesn't capitalize "Blood" in this title? The non-standard capitalization appears to be part of the name? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  SMc, it's an interesting point. But when you say "We do not, ever, capitalize after a hyphen in English, unless...", it's not clear who you are speaking of as "we". I see numerous exceptions to this, especially in titles. I agree that we would not capitalize in such a context in a title we make up, but people often do so in their own titles (see ngrams). What does MOS:CT have to say about this? It doesn't seem to be explicit, but has The Out-of-Towners as an example, so it seems to not agree with you. If we're going to be consistent in supporting the MOS as our guide to styling, we should follow it here, too. If we change to say to downcase such things, then you'll have a case; but I doubt that that would be the community's consensus on this point. Dicklyon (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Although rare, there are sources that style the title in this manner, including: [16], [17], [18], and [19]. --My76Strat (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  (first one switched to "Blood" at mid article, second uses "Half-blood blues", last one is a community website). --Enric Naval (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  (ec) Well, not that rare if you found three already (your second link is not one). I'm not saying comp titles are not subject to editorial styling decisions (just look at the stylings on IMDB), just that our MOS:CT does not appear to agree with what Stanton is saying. I've looked at other movies, like The Out-of-Towners, The Go-Between (film), The Past-Master (film), Anti-Corruption, Big School-Break, One-Eyed Monster, The Hour-Glass Sanatorium, The Seven-Ups, etc., and I don't find any examplles of compositions styled in WP the way Stanton says (I haven't looked far enough maybe). For birds, on the other hand, the styling he describes is explicitly indicated and followed. Dicklyon (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)