In the discussion here, it became clear that me and another editor are interpreting the guidelines around series numbering differently, and both interpretations are arguably consistent with what the guideline says, so I wanted to get further opinions.
The key point seems to be in understanding the final example:
regarding when to add a comma before the part information. Taken in isolation, I would assume that “volume/part name” refers to an actual title of the volume or part, so that if there was such a title, the comma rule would kick in to give something like The Piano Works, 3: The Third Part of the Piano Works. However, in the context of the other examples, it seems like “volume/part name” actually refers to the word Volume or Part etc., so even if there was a subtitle there should be no comma in this example.
I always had the second interpretation (i.e. comma before Part, Volume etc., no comma if there’s just a number or numeral, independent of whether the part/volume is titled or not), but the first one is also pretty reasonable.
Having a comma (such as The Piano Works, 3: The Third Part of the Piano Works) would seem off to me and I’d expect The Piano Works 3: The Third Part of the Piano Works here. The volume/part name refers indeed to the “Volume X” or “Part X” wording, but I can totally see how that’s very ambiguous. Does anyone have any good suggestions for an improved wording?
When a release or track uses a word (e.g. vol., volume, pt., and part) in its title to separate its name and its position within a series, insert a comma before that word. If that word is already preceded by another punctuation mark, such as a question mark (?) or an exclamation point (!), do not insert a comma.
Changes:
Deleted the clause “when a release or track is part of a series” because when a release/track has a “Volume X” or “Part X” formulation, it already implies that the release/track is part of a series. That clause is redundant.
Avoided using “title” to refer only to the part before “Volume X”, since “Volume X” is very much part of the title.
Changed “use that mark instead of the comma” to “do not insert a comma” because the default behavior should be to submit whatever is written on the cover, and if the title on the cover already has ! or ?, you don’t need to tell editors to use that mark since they already have.
Further suggestions:
If a release does have a title “The Piano Works, 3”, should the editor remove the comma? If so, we need to make it clear.
Should we expand this section to also include titles of release groups, works and recordings?
That looks good to me. I might capitalise Vol., Volume etc. in your list of examples since they would be capitalised in most examples (and maybe change “and” to “or” in this list).
Regarding your further suggestions: personally I would say no to removing commas that are printed, and yes to applying the rule uniformly to all titles (which I think is how most people, and certainly me, interpreted it already). Could the text just say “When a title uses a word…”, or would that not be clear enough?
When a word such as “volume” (“vol.”) or “part” (“pt.”) is used in a title to indicate its position within a series (of releases, tracks, etc.), insert a comma before that word. If the word is already preceded by another punctuation mark, such as a question mark (?) or an exclamation point (!), keep that mark and do not insert a comma.
Some new examples, with one English example and one French example to show that the “volume” words can be uppercased or lowercased as required by the language.
The current guideline (which this does not change, just clarifies) says to add it even if the artwork does not have it.
I’m pretty sure the reasoning behind this guideline is that it helps readability by separating the name itself from the part numbering section.
We have moved more towards leaving things as printed in the past (this guideline used to also specify that “Vol.” needed to be expanded to “Volume” and whatnot, which we no longer suggest). It might be that the community will eventually also decide to stop adding a comma at all; I must say I personally do find it more readable and clear with a comma, though.
This is getting very off topic, but there’s no guideline mandating removing that - it seems like just a mistake.
Changes will always be allowed (we correct errors, for example), but within a set of limits. In fact, the point of the guidelines is that it specifies which changes are expected to be allowed and suggests by omission that others are not
Getting back on topic…My view is that the guidelines saying to add a comma in the release titles are not right. For example, If the release titles are printed as:
Rather than starting a new thread, it seemed best to reply here because there is still a bit that seems to be unresolved from here and an earlier thread linked in the previous reply. The current style guideline for series numbering states, “If the word is already preceded by another punctuation mark … keep that mark and do not insert a comma.”
I submitted edits to change a title to the way it is printed on the release itself, which uses parentheses and also abbreviates “Part” to “Pt.” Based on the current style guideline as it is written, any existing punctuation mark should not be replaced by a comma, and parentheses are punctuation marks. I received “No” votes bringing up historical style guidelines, which should not be applicable to what is stated in the current version. (Edit #129297689)
I don’t want to drag something so minor on for too long, but it seems that it would be worth clarifying and updating the wording as to whether parentheses count as punctuation marks as far as the current style guidelines are concerned.
As I wrote in the edit note I would prefer if parentheses were explicitly excluded from the keep punctuation marks rule.
Things can get ugly when multiple pairs of parentheses are needed and as my example “I Want You (She’s So Heavy) (without the distortion) [Studio Sessions and Outtakes Remix]” shows, editors are trying to creatively resolve these cases anyway.
I don’t think this was meant to include parentheses (which would be one of the most common punctuation marks otherwise so they would almost certainly have made it into an example). That said, I have no strong opinion either way and we could clarify it in either direction depending on community preference I think.
Saw an edit which reminded me about this.
I would be happy if this was clarified explicitly: personally, it would seem strange to me to treat parentheses differently to other punctuation marks (and given that some people also seem to want to get rid of the guideline to add a comma, sticking more closely to what’s printed would probably be more popular). But I don’t feel strongly about it at all, just trying to move things forward so we get a nice clear guideline.
