Talk:Young and Jackson Hotel

Correct name
The pub is actually called 'Young and Jackson', not 'Young and Jacksons'. Pellet 07:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct name: revisited
We call our article "Young & Jackson", but all throughout the text it's "Young and Jackson". I thought I'd do the decent thing and find out the correct spelling. But no such luck: the horse's mouth, the pub's very own website has at least 4 different versions:
 * Young & Jackson – in the logo at the top of the main page
 * Young & Jacksons – at the top of the Contact Us page
 * Young and Jackson – first words of the text on the main page
 * Young and Jacksons – bottom of main page, in orange on black

One contact email is Young.and.Jacksons@alhgroup.com.au. Another is youngandjackson.functions@alhgroup.com.au

That is sadly typical of the standard of commercial websites these days – zero attention to detail. Not trivial detail, mind you, but the actual fucking name of the hotel they're promoting. To render it in 4 different ways is simply pathetic.

So, does anyone actually know the correct spelling of the name of this much revered establishment? --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The name of the pub AFAIK is "Princes Bridge Hotel" and "Young and Jackson's" simply the informal name based on the publicans' names, in the same way that the Farmers Arms Hotel in Tocumwal is known to all and sundry as "Kelly's Pub" or "Kelly's Hotel". It says "Princes Bridge Hotel" on the Swanston St side of the pub. This link from the VHR supports my recollection, I think. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's interesting information, thanks Mattinbgn. However, unless we're proposing to move the article to Princes Bridge Hotel and have all versions of "Y & J" as redirects, it doesn't help to resolve this issue.  That might not be a bad idea, though.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think I made my point clear enough. No form of Y & J is official so looking for an official spelling is futile. The best you can do is pick the version that appears to be most common in reliable sources. I suggest "Young and Jackson's" is much more common. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This history of Chloe says that in 1875 Messrs. Young and Jackson became licensees and renamed it "Young and Jackson Hotel". From my memory, it certainly has that or something very close to it emblazoned on the external walls.  (Update: See the bottom photo here, which has "Young and Jackson" and "Hotel" across the top, and what looks like "Young & Jackson" below left, obscured by a light pole.)  So, it looks like it hasn't been the "Princes Bridge Hotel" for over a century, which might help to explain why the website contains no reference to any such name.  Yet, the VHD site you supplied merges the old and new names into "Young and Jackson's Princes Bridge Hotel".  So, we're no closer after all.
 * I guess we have to ignore whatever the legal name of the place is and use the most common name. Many Melburnians wouldn't even know it was ever called the Princes Bridge Hotel, and only ever call it "Young and Jackson's".  It's easy to see how "Young and Jackson Hotel" could morph colloquially into simply "Young and Jackson's" (with or without an apostrophe), and how that formulation could be acknowledged in official literature.  I'm thinking we should change the title to "Young and Jackson Hotel".  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No objections, so I've moved it. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  06:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

News screen
does anyone know when that horrible 7 News screen went up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.243.85 (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible new external link
Hi, I moderate Culture Victoria. We have the text''?t=8854&s=7029 Young and Jackson Hotel story in CV which includes historic images of the hotel and newspaper articles about the Chloe controversy from the State Library of Victoria. I've had a look at the guidelines for adding external links and thought that a link to CV would be relevant and appropriate. Please let me know what you think.--Eleworth (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything wrong with adding that page to this article's external links; in fact, I think it's a valuable addition. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Zsero (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Underage and Jackson
Back in the late '70s/early '80s Y&J was caught selling alcohol to minors, and IIRC closed for a week. Tanner ran a cartoon renaming the hotel "Underage and Jackson". Is there any conceivable way of adding the cartoon, or of working in a reference to it, or is it of so little importance that any mention at all would give it undue weight? -- Zsero (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the brevity of the article, including such an episode is necessarily in danger of presenting an "undue weight" problem – selling alcohol to minors is unlikely to be restricted to Y&J. However, closing the pub for a week and accompanying media coverage seem to raise the event to some significance; so, if it can be reliably sourced and be phrased without sensationalism, it could be included. A link to Tanner's cartoon would of course be a nice bonus. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it was in all the papers at the time, including, obviously, the Age. But I haven't exactly got it lying around the house :-)  I don't even remember the exact year; it was sometime between, say, '78 and '82.  I think. -- Zsero (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You might consider lifting the lino and see what shows up.Smile.png — But seriously: without reliable sources, this can not be part of the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)