Talk:Davy Jones's locker

Removed utterly wrong comment
viz. Another suggestion is that it comes from "Deva Lokka", a Hindu goddess of death. [1] Although Deva is undoubtedly a Hindu term for a goddess, it is not clear that there was such a figure as "Deva Lokka". there isn't anything that comes close phonetically to "dev lokka". there is a term called devlok, which means abode of gods but how that can be same is davy jones is baffling. I think someone just got confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.225.88 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

usage error makes the title and its pronunciation incorrect
WP's manual of style states:
 * Possessives of singular nouns ending in "s" should generally maintain the additional "s" after the apostrophe. However, if a form without an "s" after the apostrophe is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Moses' Laws" and "Jesus' tears".

The only literature quoted in the article, such as Daniel Dafoe, writes "Davy Jones's" not "Davy Jones'." This isn't an older or obsolete form of English, and the incorrect "Jones'" is not established. "Jones's" is the correct possessive form of the singular "Jones." On the other hand, "Jones'" is the plural possessive of the (hypothetical) name "Jone." Worse, everyone pronounces "Jones's" correctly, with two syllables, but "Jones'" only has one syllable. This article is making a trivial error of modern English usage right up front in its title, but I don't know how to edit such a glaring mistake. Until this is fixed, I don't see how it can be called a Good Article, so I am asking to have its status reviewed. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 03:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In playing devil's advocate, I would have to say that the main problem with this is that the search engines for Google, MSN and Yahoo! have "Davy Jones' Locker" outnumbering "Davy Jones's Locker" in search results. Even though it's assumed that it is a locker belonging to a Davy Jones, the prevalent "Davy Jones' Locker" would have you assume that it would actually be for more than one person named Davy Jone.
 * Moreover, as the term is idiomatic, the correct spelling is not fixed (particularly in this subject's case, as "Davy" is sometimes spelled "Davey" or "Davie"); the most prevalent usage of the term takes more adherence over the one that is grammatically correct. Slof 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not intending to be pedantic with this. This particular usage error is made all the time in other contexts, which I don't support but am not going to fret over. My beef in our case is that everyone says Jones's with two syllables. It's embarrassing to see the very title, for pete's sake, clashing with this most oral of phrases. The variants of "Davy" don't suffer from this. I would say that mere outnumbering on Google shouldn't prevent the simple fix of changing the page's title, but such a change requires higher WP privileges. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is one of those bizarre grammar rules that only true grammarians seem to be aware of. An "S" with no apostrophe denotes plural, an apostrophe-S denotes possessive (not necessarily singular possessive since some words in plural do not add an "S"), and an S-apostrophe denotes plural possessive.  However, this only applies to ordinary nouns; proper nouns ending in "S" or "Z" (such as "Jones") only take on an apostrophe when denoting possessive.  Thus the correct construction is indeed "Davy Jones' Locker."  At least that's the usage style taught by Associated Press Style. Nolefan32 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * IMHO, if Associated Press says that, then Associated Press is wrong. More constructively: whatever AP's style manual says, Wikipedia has a style manual of its own which trumps other organizations' style manuals in this context, and (as 0-0-0-Deconstruct-0 said) Wikipedia's style manual is pretty clear on this point.  As 0-0-0-Deconstruct-0 also said, changing it to "Jones's" would also be supported by the more general rule that we follow common usage.  The common usage in this case is definitely "Jones's." 129.97.79.144 17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Manual of Style says "Usage varies..." and has no specific guidance on if Jones’ is better or worse than Jones’s. Both forms correct and it depends on how you pronounce "Davey Jones' Locker." If the middle word is with one syllable then you write "Jones'" and if you pronounce it as "Jone-es" then you write "Jones's." I've generally heard people use, and I use, "Jones'." 0-0-0-Destruct-0 has apparently only heard and uses the two syllable version and so uses "Jones's." WP:MOS is also constructive to read.


 * The Instant English Handbook by Madeline Semmelmeyer and Donald O. Bolander (ISBN 0-911744-03-7) says on page 101 "One simple rule applies to all cases: If the singular form of the noun does not end in s, add the apostrophe and s ('s). If the singular form ends in s then add the apostrophe (')." Page 291 suggest to add a second s if the additional s sound is desired. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget that the phrase Davy Jones' locker originates from the language of seamen - they weren't necessarily the best educated of men, M3n747 (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Who on Earth, apart from those who are lazy, or have a speech impediment, pronounces the possessive of "Jones" as "Jones"? Pronunciation is, in any case, no rationale: English is not a true phonetic language.  And the number of syllables in the word is irrelevant - as is the spurious argument that a subject of the classics (Cyrus etc.) have their own special rule (such a rule would mean that one would need knowledge of disciplines outside the language in order to determine syntax - which is ridiculous). The If the subject is singular then the possessive always attracts the 's.  The 's is only properly truncated to ' when the terminal s in the noun denotes plural.  The use of the truncation in the singular is an archaic form from a time when variation of spelling in a single text was acceptable.  The continued use of this archaic form is generally used for poetic, or reverential use, or by those who are, in fact, ignorant - even if they have written a publication on the subject of grammar.  Publications are not immune from factual inaccuracies, misconceptions or misinterpretations - which then manifest the error to the reader. JohnArmagh (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So, how does one 'fix' a title? Or is the procedure simple to copy the content and then change the current (bad title) article to a redirect? quota (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why sentence(s) removed
I was a bit incensed to find that someone has removed the sentence(s) of mine on Dewi and Shoney, without at least considering to tell me why via talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvis Rofhessa (talk • contribs) 04:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a look at what you added see that it was an extraordinary claim that was not backed up with extraordinary references (or any references at all). Encyclopedic content must be verifiable and so should cite sources. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Relation to the Flying Dutchman
Apart from the obvious references made in Pirates of the Caribbean (which are historical whack), could someone find any sources at all that title Davy Jones being the captain of the Flying Dutchman? As far as I know, the two are completely different legends. I suggest the line: "There was a man by the name of Vanderdecken, original owner of the Flying Dutchman, Jones' ghost ship. There was an actual David Jones, who was a pirate on the Indian Ocean in the 1630s,[4] but most scholars agree that he was not renowned enough to gain such lasting global fame.[3] " is removed from the article. --81.206.214.43 (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Davy Jones is a Legend. And Legends can change his appearence, no picture is wrong and every Devil with his Name is right.;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.23.171.64 (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Title of article is wrong?
The term is usually spelled "Davy Jones's Locker" -- and indeed this is the spelling used in the first line of the introduction. How does one change the name of the article simply? quota (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The first line has been corrected. When a name or a word ends with an "s", as in Jones, the possessive form only needs an apostrophe, not an extra "s". As in "the boss' desk" (meaning the desk belonging to the the boss). For an example of this rule applied to names, see Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. - Boneyard90 (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That is not the case. Despite Wikipedia policy, and despite the opinion of those who think they know, or so-called experts who claim to know otherwise, the omission of the possessive 's' for singulars ending in 's' is an archaic form, and Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage is somewhat derisory towards it, stating its usage is these days reserved for poetic or reverential reference, in addition to use for classical subjects (the last of these is particularly spurious, in that it requires knowledge beyond that of linguistics itself, in order to determine that a subject is one which is deemed to be classic in nature).  Americanisims appear to have a tendency to adhere to archaic forms of English, such as variance of spelling, if only in order to distinguish itself from the language of their former "colonial masters" - so it is not surprising that in the US there is a preference for s' over s's.  In fact s' is only truly appropriate when the terminal s of a noun indicates a plural.  Hence, Jones's is the correct possessive form for a singular named Jones - whereas Jones' would indicate possessive of a group of individuals named Jone.  (The plural possessive of Jones is Joneses'.)  Additionally, those who are determined to use Jones' as a singular possessive should also use the same form when a noun ends in x or in ce (for instance "Knox' father" or "conscience' sake").  JohnArmagh (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What a convoluted rationale for justifying a lazy spelling error. It's all pretty moot, because as was pointed out, Wikipedia policy favors the "archaic form". Boneyard90 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing at all convoluted about it. The "lazy spelling error" is Jones'.  Jones's is the correct form.  And Wikipedia policy is actually essentially that the majority form employed in an article is the standard for future edits to that article. JohnArmagh (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I like how you say that American English has "a tendency to adhere to archaic forms of English". That's awesome. I usually hear people saying that British English is the "original English". If American English holds on to the "archaic forms", would that mean it has a higher degree of - shall we say - "authentic" English? Boneyard90 (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The "original English" was the language spoken by the Anglo-Saxon immigrants to Britain in the 5th Century. It is no longer spoken.  British English is a language which has evolved since that time - and during the majority of that time there was no standard spelling - and that was the case when the American colonies achieved independence.  Since that time British English adopted a standard of spelling and grammar to which the US was not obliged to adhere.  Additionally the vast majority of immigrants into the US during its post-independence development in the 19thC were from non-English-speaking regions - particularly Germany and the Hispanic regions (indeed, the German influence is apparent in the US accents of those areas with the heaviest influx of German people).  JohnArmagh (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly support JohnArmagh. Where the possessive makes an extra syllable, only "-s's" is correct and "-s'" is irritating. Moonraker (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've done it. Ordinary Person (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And I've moved it back, as per WP:TITLECHANGES: Paragraph 2. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For evidence, may I submit Slang and Its Analogues (1891), compiled by John S. Farmer of the Strand, London, who spells it both "Davy Jones' Locker" and "Davy Jones's Locker", so it would appear that either spelling is acceptable. That being the case, the more widely used form should be used as the article title. — howcheng  {chat} 17:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In that case, the "more widely used" is the title as it is now. Google search "Davy Jones' Locker", minus "Wikipedia", turns up 488,000 hits; "Davy Jones's Locker", minus "Wikipedia", turns up 95,200 hit. "Common name" supports the title now in use. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move to "Jones's"—The naming of articles and the determination of the common name are more complex than you suggest, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLE. WP:SET also explains that "a search engine test can be very effective and helpful, or produce misleading or non-useful results." In the case of this article, almost all the sources in this article use "Jones's." We're not merely looking for the most common usage by the general public; instead, "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" (WP:UCRN). A great number of search engine results are NOT from reliable sources. Holy (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll plan to move this article to "Davy Jones's Locker" after a while. It has been 3 days and there have been zero responses. Holy (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I have boldly moved this article from Davy Jones' Locker to Davy Jones's locker. Contrary to what is written above, Wikipedia does not prefer the archaic form "Jones' locker", indeed as of 2022 we actively prefer "Jones's" as written as MOS:'S. (At the time of the above debate, in 2011, the advice was that it was optional which variant was chosen). Note that I have also amended the title to sentence case, thus "locker" rather than "Locker", as this is the form recommended by MOS:CAPS, given that the form with 's and lower-case l dominates usage in book sources. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this article meant as a spoof?
Is this article a serious one? It reads (particularly any reference to the Welsh) as a spoof of Wikipedia. Do any of the contributors who make reference to the Welsh have any knowledge whatsoever of Welsh culture? Most of the popularly known pirates do happen to be Welsh and the name Davy (Dafydd/Dewi) Jones is Welsh. Therefore, One might expect a bit more knowledge about Wales in an article on a figure called Davy Jones.

Do you know of any sources we could use to help improve this article? A section with welsh history would be interesting and add to this pageMeatsgains (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is SO NOT encyclopedic158.61.0.254 (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC).

File:Punch Davy Jones's Locker.png to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Punch Davy Jones's Locker.png will be appearing as picture of the day on January 15, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-01-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Welsh
Both "Davy" and "Jones" are specifically Welsh. Before the 18th century "David" was a moderately unusual English name. The English cognate of "Jones" is "Johnson".--Wetman (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

By : Shakyra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.202.29 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Who is Davy Jones?
Who is Davy Jones? 86.97.34.82 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Jessica

Read the article Summerjohnston131 (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Davy Jones' Locker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702145620/http://pro-rock.com/index.cfm?page=discography&view=lyrics&albumid=5&lid=80 to http://www.pro-rock.com/index.cfm?page=discography&view=lyrics&albumid=5&lid=80
 * Added tag to http://en.spongepedia.bimserver2.com/index.php?title=Davy_Jones%27_Locker

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Landlubber
Just means "land lover" i.e. "non sailor" - it may be an insult thrown at a greenhorn, but it doesn't mean "greenhorn". Vince Calegon 18:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Calegon (talk • contribs)

Pop culture examples
At present most of the article length is given to examples of references to DJL in media works. When I removed them all, it was reverted and I was told to "obtain consensus," but the editor who reverted did not bother to state here why they believe that the examples are beneficial to the article. I dispute that "consensus" exists to have these in the article. Such examples are generally added as a form of drive-by "tagging" by anonymous or limited-activity editors without regard for editorial standards such as sourcing, coherence and significance, and as they grow, they attract still more anonymous editors who incorrectly suppose that this is the way an encyclopedia article gets written.

There is a consensus, established through RFC, that mere existence of a pop culture reference does not make it appropriate to mention in an article. Some reliable source should have commented on how the example reflects on the article subject. (See WP:TRIVIA.) I have retained such examples when cleaning up pop culture lists. However, examples that merely point out that a particular sequence of words were said somewhere are useless, and I will remove them here as I have removed them in many other articles. Anyone who wants to keep them can explain here why doing so would be consistent with the RFC consensus. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Rename to "Davy Jones (folklore)"?
The article mostly talks about the folkloric figure. Shouldn't the title reflect that? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)