Talk:Eraserhead/Archive 2

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Not really a surrealist film
It has some superficial resemblances to some of Buñuel's early films, as well as non-surrealist avant-garde films like Meshes of the Afternoon and Blood of a Poet, but, like those latter two, really has nothing to do with surrealism as a philosophical/political/cultural movement. Lynch has stated before that he never even saw Un chien andalou until after this was made and he has never been involved in any surrealist activity, plus his own words on surrealism have shown that he understands it very little. It does quite a disservice to both surrealism and Lynch's work to continually conflate the two. Surrealism isn't a genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.163.47 (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is not surrealist, but it is surreal. One word implies influence, while the other simply implies that it has certain qualities. However, this is only my opinion and it certainly is possible to describe the movie without using either word. Richard K. Carson (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Article improvement
I'd like to start a drive to improve this article to FA quality. If anyone is interested in helping, I'd like to start a working Bibliography so we can get quality sources in order. We also need to look at the structure. Let's take another FA-class Lynch film, Mulholland Drive (film), as an example. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I second this. A while ago, I added a few references and any progress on this article is welcomed. Nice work so far too!  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many omissions from the Release section for Home Media, including the UK release on VHS (by Channel 5 video in 1986), and there's a fuller list around that Wikipedia might try to match: http://www.worldcat.org/title/eraserhead/oclc/52172356/editions?start_edition=71&sd=desc&referer=di&se=yr&editionsView=true&fq= 2.31.164.60 (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Changed reptilian to amphibious and snakelike to spermlike based on watching the movie and zoology BS degree. the offspring has wet skin, not scales which is the hallmark of amphibians as opposed to reptiles. The spermlike change may be controversial with regards to thematic implications, but snakes don't have enlarged heads, and the spermlike things both appear to spawn the baby and appear in bed with Henry and Mary. I'm okay with further revisions to sperm like but amphibious is clearly better than reptilian regardless of source texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.215.185 (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Working Bibliography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.215.185 (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sheen, Erica, Davison, A. (eds.) The Cinema of David Lynch: American Dreams, Nightmare Visions. Wallflower Press, 2004. ISBN 190336485X
 * Hoberman, J. & Rosenbaum, Jonathan. Midnight Movies. Da Capo Press, 1991. ISBN 0306804336

Working outline

 * Plot
 * Production history
 * Development
 * Casting
 * Filming
 * Interpretations and allusions
 * Characters
 * Style
 * Soundtrack
 * Release and reaction
 * Performance
 * Critical reception
 * Release History
 * Awards
 * References
 * Notes
 * Bibliography
 * External links

Reviews to use
I'll probably end up using these myself within the next few days. GRAPPLE  X  23:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/63957/eraserhead.html
 * http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-01-09/film/david-lynch-made-a-man-out-of-me/
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturecritics/timrobey/3560312/Film-reviews-Eden-Lake-Jar-City-and-more.html
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/movies/07eras.html?scp=3&sq=eraserhead&st=cse
 * http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=14647

Name dropping
I found the name dropping of Sissy Spacek in the introduction to be off-putting:

"The budget was not sufficient to complete the film and, as a result, Lynch worked on Eraserhead intermittently, using money from odd jobs and from friends and family, including childhood friend Jack Fisk, a production designer and the husband of actress Sissy Spacek, until its 1977 release."

While that is interesting, it seems to be like I say, "name dropping" and off-putting a bit. I suggest it be removed and to let the reader explore a bit more in depth to find the connection. Perhaps a rewording would work instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedshort (talk • contribs) 02:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

FA comments
I was gonna leave these in the FAC, but it looks like I didn't save them in time! I wasn't going to oppose anyway, but I figured I might as well leave what I wrote:
 * "X, however, is not sure if what she bore is a child." This is sort of an awkwardly worded sentence.
 * I'm not sure about referring to Mary X as just X. It's confusing, since she has parents, but at the same time given the surreal rules of naming in the film it's not even clear that X would work the same way a conventional last name would. She should probably be "Mary X" on each mention.
 * "Man in the Planet struggles his levers" maybe "struggles with" or "struggles to control"?
 * "before the screen turns black and silent." The screen turns silent?
 * For the "A Dark Lens on America" reference, why link to the 8th page? Since there are so many pages in the article, it might be better to throw it into the "References" section and then cite it by page number.
 * Not mandatory, just a suggestion, but I think it's best to archive reference URLs with WebCite.
 * "a sound track (two words) in the literal sense" It's not immediately apparent what this quote means, there are probably better quotes to pull from this review.
 * The Angriest Dog in the World could use just a quick phrase explaining what it is.
 * What was the film's budget? This book says $10,000; this book says $20,000. The answer must be out there.
 * The Coens' Barton Fink may be worth adding to the list of films with Eraserhead influence. There are almost certainly more.
 * My biggest issue with the article is that the Themes (and maybe the Legacy and Reception sections) could use expansion. Compared to articles about art films of similar or slightly greater status (Mulholland Drive (film), Barton Fink, Late Spring, Pulp Fiction), there's a lack of critical analysis here compared to what's out there. I know that you want to avoid redundant stuff, and there is no doubt a lot of redundant analysis of the sexual/family themes. However, you could probably expand a bit on Eraserhead as an expressionist-influenced film, a postmodern film, and a film with a stance about industrial society.
 * David Foster Wallace wrote a fairly notable appraisal of Lynch, which would be worth combing through. Worth mention: "When Eraserhead was a surprise hit at festivals and got a distributor, David Lynch rewrote the cast and crew's contracts so they would all get a share of the money, which they still do, now, every fiscal quarter." There's probably more worth extracting, especially DFW's actual critical analysis.
 * More from Rosenbaum: "Lynch, by contrast, has never shown the slightest inclination toward social commentary, much less protest. Eraserhead, a very private meditation about fears concerning sex, procreation, and parenthood, is founded on a certain biological determinism that is pessimistic and conservative in its implications, with no hint of any social analysis in sight."
 * Time Out: "By now, the most interesting thing about Lynch’s cult-classic debut may be the evidence it offers of how fully his sensibility was formed."
 * Ebert (in the context of his critique of Blue Velvet): "His first feature, "Eraserhead," established him as a brilliant young stylist."

--Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Character naming
Grapple X has reverted several times my changes to refer to Henry Spencer and Mary X by their first names, and has made the following claims:
 * "Pretty much any other article" will show that surnames are standard.
 * Mary's parents are not similarly named "X" so the first name does not help distinguish her.
 * I should defer to the rules at WP:SURNAME

So let's take these claims. I looked at the articles on Pulp Fiction, then Blue Velvet, then Dune, then Lost Highway and was not surprised that the use of first names for characters was more common than Grapple X believes. Dune has exceptions, for example, when referring to the heads of noble houses. Grapple X is welcome to look at the plot summary for Thelma and Louise to see whether it follows his rule; I'm confident enough that I'm not even going to look. Next, it is true that Mary's parents are never given surnames in the film action or in the credits. In fact, neither is Mary given a surname in either case. It is instead the critical/reference literature that refer to them as the X family. As far as the film itself is concerned, she is "Mary." And finally, Grapple X, the title of the recommendation you refer me to is "Manual of Style/Biographies" intended for "biographical articles" and "biographical information in other articles." Not fiction. The only relevant recommendation I could find was the essay Naming conventions (characters) which observes that "there is currently no special guideline for naming a fictional character" but recommends general consistency with published sources. In this regard see The Cinema of David Lynch, David Lynch: Beautiful Dark, and The Impossible David Lynch which have previews on Google Books and use first names for both Mary and Henry. It seems that you are enforcing a recommendation that exists only in your mind, based on spurious claims. I'd appreciate it if you would acknowledge the error and stop reverting the change. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not an error; the simple fact is that there is no good reason to replace the character's names with simply their forenames. WP:SURNAME gives the manual of style's approach to how to treat names in articles, which with Western names is to use surnames after the first mention. Whether those names refer to real or fictional people is beside the point, the two should not be treated differently. If you look at articles of a higher quality (of those you mention, only one has undergone any form of successful review process), you'll find surname-only naming to be common—the Featured quality film and television articles Manhunter (film), Ruma Maida, The Post-Modern Prometheus, Jaws (film), Triangle (The X-Files) etc etc, you'll see that high-quality articles, which have undergone independent review by multiple editors, favour the formal and encyclopaedic tone which WP:SURNAME provides. It's far from a spurious claim to stick to our manual of style and retain consistency with other Featured articles; so I'd thank you to stop trying to enforce an inferior version of this article over the one which was agreed by the community to be worthy of the status it's been afforded. GRAPPLE   X  22:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I've given you a reason in Mary's case: disambiguation. You simply choose to ignore it and insist on a recommendation that blatantly does not apply here. It's not surprising that you'd turn to X-Files episodes to support your case, a show where the main characters are routinely called by their surnames in the script. The same is not true of Eraserhead. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This recommendation does not only exist in the editors' minds, it exists in the manual of style, which you have been provided a link for. While there is no specific guideline for fictional characters, the general rule is to go with the master MOS's guidelines unless there is a reason for a particular article to have an exception (which is why they are guidelines and not rules).  The exceptions you noted were either edited that way in error, or the editors of each page decided at some point that those articles warranted exceptions for whatever reason (in Pulp fiction multiple Wallace indicators could have become confusing for example).  Millahnna (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 24.22: There is no disambiguation needed. "X" refers to Mary X; the very rare occasions in which her family are mentioned are not by name but by their relation to X; "X's father" does not require disambiguation from "X", as there is no way you could imply from "X's father" that any future mentions of "X" would refer to the father. This is not a situation where the characters need to be differentiated from each other as the plot summary already clearly indicates who is who while still keeping to WP:SURNAME. GRAPPLE   X  22:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm overlooking something here, but don't plot sections generally follow the names most often used to refer to the characters in the work itself? For example, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) – which is classed as a good article – does not refer to the protagonists as Potter, Weasley and Granger (I imagine any attempt to implement something like this would be highly controversial). However, the article does make exceptions for characters like Snape and Dumbledore, since they are most often referred to by their surnames.

Considering how rarely the names Spencer and X are used in Eraserhead, I think it would be more informative and intuitive to use these characters' forenames. —Flax5 22:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't multiple characters in that franchise share those surnames? I know for certain there are multiple Weasley siblings and Potter's parents are invoked at least a few times in those books I did read; in that case using forenames is a useful way of disambiguating between characters who would realistically offer some confusion. GRAPPLE   X  23:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

For additional confirmation as to how published sources refer to character names in Eraserhead, we may easily consult the external reviews section of Eraserhead's entry in IMDb, which contains 113 reviews. I examined each of the 113 write-ups, including the ones written in languages other than English, and found that all reviewers refer to the characters as "Henry" and "Mary", with not a single one naming them "Spencer" and "X". A considerable number of the reviews start by referring to the characters as "Henry Spencer" and "Mary X", but after the first mention of the full names, continue to describe them in the remainder of each respective review as "Henry" and "Mary". Fictional characters in literature, theater, film, television, video games and... "media yet to be invented" cannot be forcibly inserted into stylistic conventions of biographical entries, hence biographies of fictional characters are written within the conventions of the characters' fictional universe. Some characters are known only by their given names, some are known only by their surnames, some by their full names, but there no "one-size-fits-all" approach in fiction and nowhere in MOS is such an approach encouraged.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. It's been a little while since I saw this film, but her name was Mary. I don't remember "X" being used. It reads very different to call her X. It's like she's not even a person, it puts a whole different subjective spin on the article. There are exceptions to every rule, and this is a good one - when characters are primarily referred to by their first name in the film, the plot section should do the same. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In all fairness the characters are rarely referred to by name at all in the film; there's perhaps two scenes at maximum in which any character is referred to by any name. We're not talking about a dialogue-heavy film in which one term is used frequently and the article uses another; names in general aren't much used in the film so I find it unusual to make this the exception for what's so infrequent an occurrence in the actual film. I could understand this if every scene featured Spencer being called "Henry" by someone but it's rarely uttered; as with "Mary".  GRAPPLE   X  23:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite so. But when I first glanced at the plot section my first thought was "Who the hell is Spencer? And X?" In the next second I realized what you were doing, but it bugs me, to put it nicely. The article reads wrong this way. In most everything I've read about this film, they're called "Henry" and "Mary", as Roman says above. I concur with him. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about the individual films/series; it's about the MoS and consistency. I don't know if any of you are familiar with Grey's Anatomy, but they usually do not refer to characters by last names. However, our Wikipedia articles on them do. Grey's Anatomy currently has two featured articles: "Give Peace a Chance" (Grey's Anatomy) and Sadie Harris. Both were promoted because they follow the MoS, which says people should be referred to by their surname. Model articles follow that stylistic guideline, and I see no reason why Eraserhead, another model article, should be exempt from the MoS. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @Gothicfilm: If confusion seems to be an issue I could alleviate this with a cast section; it's a small enough cast that mirroring Fight Club would work and there's enough information to make a section like Manhunter too; whichever would read easier. I'm genuinely concerned about the idea of basing our prose on IMDB's fan reviews, though; there's very little stopping me or someone else spending an evening writing 150 of them using different terms entirely (not a threat, just a note that it could be done in the future with this conversation pointed to as an example of when IMDB was used). Forgive my stubbornness but I'm just not seeing "XYZ non-Wikipedia page uses Henry" as being weightier than our own MOS; I'm aware that exceptions exist but the vast majority of pop-culture references are going to use forenames as they're more accessible, that doesn't seem to me a good reason to create a disharmony between how we treat reality and fiction in terms of style. We're an encyclopaedia after all, and we generally stick to a formal tone that isn't necessarily mirrored by mass media—especially fan-edited sites with no editorial oversight like IMDB. GRAPPLE   X  23:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I was only confused for a second. This just reads wrong, to me anyway. Reader familiarity and feeling for the characters should be taken into account as well. As I said, it reads very different to call her X. It's like she's not even a person. In most everything I've read about this film, meaning critical reviews, not fansites or the IMDb, they're called "Henry" and "Mary". We go by the sources, don't we? - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't go by external sources for stylistic details. Entertainment Weekly and the Los Angeles Times don't italicize film titles and they also use spaced em-dashes; does that mean we shouldn't? No, because our MoS is different than theirs. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as not particularly relevant. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe "familiarity and feeling" should be a concern at all; that's the kind of thinking that breeds informal tone. I would feel more for a character if, for example, we referred to them as "Philip" rather than "Marlowe", but familiarity isn't something that should trump the consistency of our style guide. As for the relevance of TR's comments; if you're arguing for adopting another publication's stylistic choices, why are some worth keeping over our own but not others? GRAPPLE   X  00:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the proper "familiarity and feeling" for a Philip Marlowe piece would certainly be to call him "Marlowe". - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So this is just a gut feeling we're going with then, rather than something internally consistent? I'm entirely loathe to bend guidelines away from consistency for the sake of instinct and impression rather than retaining a desirable tone the current way. GRAPPLE   X  00:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I phrased it wrong. You said that because external sources use the characters' first names, that means that we should. I am saying that no, we don't follow external sites' stylistic preferences. We follow our MoS. As an example, I noted that external sources use spaced em-dashes, but the MoS tells us not to on Wikipedia. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The MOS takes precedent from an editing standpoint. There are exceptions (for example, I think Mary or Mary X would work better than X, see Clarence 13X) but for a person with a clear family name like Spencer we should refer to him with it. However, I note that this is not standardised in film articles. Note that Jaws (film), for example, mixes the two styles in the same article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Having had a look at Malcolm X, an FA-class article which I figured would be worth consulting, it seems to use "Malcolm X" at all junctions, treating it as one term. I could be persuaded to adopt the same approach here, but I'm still uncomfortable with just the forename when it's an unnecessary MOS deviation. GRAPPLE   X  00:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mary X sounds like a good idea, and I have no issue with "Spencer" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean you want to call her "Mary X" throughout? That won't look very good. Gothicfilm (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at Malcolm X and Clarence 13X, linked above? It's fine and its better than just X. Just Mary would be against the MOS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly won't look any worse than mixing "Mary" with "Spencer"; at the very least it retains a degree of formality and encyclopaedic tone while keeping to MOS, which forenames won't. GRAPPLE   X  00:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Do I have to point out Malcolm X was known by that name? There's exceptions to every rule, and you've got people disputing your clinging to this rule here. And we're talking about fictional characters. There no reason to use a BIO rule that applies to non-fiction bios. It would look absurd to consistently call her "Mary X".
 * In any case I have to run out the door for now. Congrats on the David Lynch Did You Know today. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's being defended by as many opinions as are against it, so it's not exactly a clear-cut dispute; and I still fail to see why fictional characters should use a different style guide to real ones. A name is a name even if it doesn't belong to a real person. But thanks for the congrats; hope you found it an interesting read. GRAPPLE   X  01:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Although the difference between IMDb's "user reviews" and "external reviews" sections is well-known to those who are familiar with that site, it needs to be reiterated that in contrast to the "fan reviews" as well as "brickbats" from the general populace found in "user reviews", "external reviews" contains links to critical notices originally appearing in print and subsequently posted online by newspaper and magazine writers or their publications, as well as write-ups by professional and semi-professional film critics writing for on-line sources. If it had made stylistic sense to these many veteran as well as novice writers to reference the two Eraserhead characters as "Spencer" and "X", at least one of them would have done so.  The fact that none did, should at least indicate to us that the attempt to force the "Spencer"/"X" stylistic approach is misguided to say the least.  The use of "X" seems particularly egregious, since there is no precedent for such use (as has already been pointed out with regard to Malcolm X) and no confirmation within the film's fictional universe that the unexplained use of "X", does, in fact, even represent Mary's family surname.  Numerous characters in fiction, such as those in The X-Files, McCloud, or Marlowe should, indeed be referenced by their surnames, since that is how they are referenced in their respective fictional universes, but in the case of the Eraserhead characters, WP:RELIABLESOURCES have spoken and shown us the way&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't see why this article should be an exception to the manual of style. it went through a featured review and this was not an issue there, either. just stick to MOS - 24.210.220.233 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already said this, but we do not get stylistic guidelines from IMDb's external reviews; whether or not they're reliable sources is irrelevant. The point is that Wikipedia has its own MoS, and doesn't base it's style off of other published works. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote from the opening comments in this discussion, above, by 24.22.217.162: "the title of the recommendation you refer me to is "Manual of Style/Biographies" intended for "biographical articles" and "biographical information in other articles." Not fiction. The only relevant recommendation I could find was the essay Naming conventions (characters) which observes that "there is currently no special guideline for naming a fictional character" but recommends general consistency with published sources. In this regard see The Cinema of David Lynch, David Lynch: Beautiful Dark, and The Impossible David Lynch which have previews on Google Books and use first names for both Mary and Henry." To this I should add that, although, as has already been pointed out, we do not, on Wikipedia, follow certain orthographic practices such as "illogical quotes", even though they are used by The New York Times.  On the other hand, British and some other American publications, tend to use the "logical quote", thus enabling us to present examples of "logical usage" by WP:RELIABLESOURCES.  However, no WP:RELIABLESOURCES, in any part of the English-speaking world: US, Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or India, or even beyond the English-speaking world, can be found to support the awkward "Spencer"/"X" form.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Had I written this I would have followed the use of the surname convention as a general best practice. I can see compromising with "Mary X" instead of "X". On a related note, I used "Clarence 13X" passim in his article, it's somewhat an apples to oranges comparison though, since that specifically deals with one faith's naming conventions. I can understand why some would find the use of "X" as a surname jarring though. I don't understand the arguments in favor of "Henry" alone though, it's general practice here to use surnames... it doesn't seem like a sourcing issue at all to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, this discussion is only about the use of character names, not the names of all individuals within the article. No one is arguing that we should, for instance, reference David Lynch as "David", instead of as "Lynch".  Naming and referencing fictional characters, however, is the prerogative of the work's author and we should respect author's rights and not try to force onto a fictional world inappropriate conventions which apply solely to the real world.  In the case of films which list character names in end credits, those character names, as listed, should be considered the ultimate guide in describing the characters.  Thus, if the end credits state: Jack Nance...Henry, Charlotte Stewart...Mary, then that is how the characters should be referenced throughout.  If, on the other hand, the credits indicate: Jack Nance...Henry Spencer, Charlotte Stewart...Mary X, then we have a guideline we can use in support of referencing the characters as "Spencer" and "Mary X" ("X" is still problematic as a surname and can have other meanings --- although Mary is not a nun, her given name might nevertheless be "Mary Xavier", or some other form --- no definitive indication that the family surname is "X").&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 10:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, here is the complete on-screen Eraserhead cast list, including character names, as can be confirmed by viewing the film on You Tube (here):


 * starring John Nance as Henry Spencer
 * Mary X.............................................Charlotte Stewart
 * Mr. X................................................Allen Joseph
 * Mrs. X..............................................Jeanne Bates


 * Beautiful Girl Across the Hall............Judith Anna Roberts
 * Lady in the Radiator..........................Laurel Near
 * Landlady..........................................V. Phipps-Wilson
 * Ultimately, it would seem that while characters "Beautiful Girl Across the Hall", "Lady in the Radiator", "Landlady" and even "Mr. X" and "Mrs. X" would have to be referenced by these exact terms, Henry Spencer and Mary X, according to our purported rules for personal names which, some insist, should also apply to fictional characters, would need to be referenced as "Spencer" and "X". Thus, if a description were written of the scene with "X" and her parents, the text would have to state something to the effect of "X said to Mr. X" or "Mrs. X said to X".  Also in fiction, some characters are indicated by their given names and others solely by their surnames, thus creating further potential confusion as plot synopses would then refer to characters known by their given names in a new form, using their little-known surnames.  Moreover, various fictional characters have given-name surnames, such as "Alfred", "Arnold" or "Frederick" and, while it may be established at some point in a film or a novel, that those are their surnames, such characters would be continually referenced by their given names and would be known as such by the audience.  If a character who is introduced as "Bob Arnold" and subsequently continually referenced as "Bob", becomes "Arnold" in a Wikipedia plot synopsis, the resulting confusion only makes the write-up seem unprofessional and amateurish.  Putting aside WP:ENGVAR orthography issues (dashes, hyphens, inside-outside quotation marks), we still remain within WP:MOS while using as models numerous examples of professional writing in book, theater and film reviews which are WP:ENGVAR-neutral and are universally used throughout the English-speaking world.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems to be implying a level of ambiguity which clearly isn't present; there is no instance whatsoever of "X said to Mr. X" or the like and no situation at all in which X's parents could be confused with her in the prose. It doesn't create a sense of confusion, which renders that issue moot. "Mr. X" and "Mrs. X" are simply referred to at all times by their relationship to X, not by names or titles; the phrase "X's mother" could not be confused with "X" by any rational mind. This is simply a stylistic issue, rather than one of clarity or disambiguation; and one which I firmly believe should be kept within the realms of the manual of style. GRAPPLE   X  14:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Character naming redux

 * Introduction for newbies to this debate: the question is, should we refer to the characters in Eraserhead as "Henry and Mary" (forenames) or "Spencer and X" (surnames). The former is normal in published writing on this film; the debate is over whether Wikipedia's MOS requires us to use the latter.

At the risk of reopening this debate, I've reverted to using the forenames. GrappleX has appealed to WP:SURNAME. But this MoS requirement comes from the MoS on biographies, not works of art; it clearly states "This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles". Film synopses are not biographies, and, as numerous people have explained above, no published authors (whether film reviewers or scholars) ever refer to the characters as 'Spencer and X'. There's a reason for that - it conflicts with the way the characters talk in the film and thus sounds weird to most readers who like the film. Cop 663 (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As was pointed out during this discussion's first run, there is no indication anywhere in the MOS that we should treat fictional objects in a manner distinct from real ones—we don't suspend the usual MOS for plot sections of fictional work. A guideline for presenting how people's names are to be given is clearly the de facto guideline for how fictional names are presented; similarly, we don't breach the MOS for acronyms just because it's assumed that, in-universe, everyone simply uses EBE or APA or the like—we expand those at first mention, just like MOS says. Similarly, The Daily Planet gets italics even if comic books tend not to use italics. There is simply no reason to deviate from our internal manual of style here, and the argument "but other sources style it differently" simply ignores or misunderstand the entire point of having a manual of style. Style is determined in-house, and we have determined ours—WP:MOS. That's it. IMDB's in-house style, The Guardian in-house style, etc, these have zero bearing on our own.


 * You are misunderstanding how to us an MOS. By insisting on surnames you are actually going against the MOS. As noted above, the MOS goes out of its way to specifically state that the rule about surnames applies only to biographical material. There is simply no rule in the MOS about what to do with fictional characters. The fact that there is no guidance in the MOS does not mean we must enforce an arbitrary consistency where none is required. Why do you think nobody has written a section in the MOS on this subject? It's because it would be impossible to make rules; the way we write about film characters depends on the individual film. We say Mulder and Scully but we say Han and Leia.
 * It is clear that Wikipedia does not have a rule about this and permits flexibility. Here are some examples of Featured Articles on film and TV that use first names for characters; note that in all of these examples the characters are not being referred to this way to disambiguate them from others of the same surname, but rather because that's how we normally refer to them:
 * Barton_Fink
 * Firefly_(TV_series)
 * Casablanca_(film) - an interesting example of flexibility: Rick Blaine is called "Rick", but Victor Laszlo is called "Laszlo", reflecting the way the characters talk about each other, and the way they are usually referred to in writing on the film
 * Transformers_(film)
 * Once_More,_with_Feeling_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer)
 * List of Carnivàle episodes
 * I submit to you that (a) You are going against a specific statement in the MOS that is clearly designed to permit flexibility in non-biographical material (b) The option for flexibility on this matter is clearly demonstrated in other Wikipedia articles (c) Henry and Mary are never referred to as 'Spencer and X' in the film's dialogue (d) The use of surnames in this article is not reflected in any other published work on the film, whether in newspapers or university presses.
 * I can see that there is a split in the opinions expressed above, and if my opinion is a minority one I can accept that, but might I suggest at least taking a vote to get a sense of how many people may prefer to use 'Henry and Mary'? Cop 663 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, interesting. I missed this discussion first time around. I'll drop a note on the Film Project talkpage for more input.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If the MOS specifically permits flexibility, please explain how sticking to it is going against it? Surely the author of an article is granted this flexibility you mention when writing it, or else it's not actually flexibility at all. At the end of the day this is simply going to come down to stylistic issues—yes, MOS could be waived, but without a pressing reason why, or a clear consensus for changing the status quo, there is no need to do so. There is no issue of ambiguity, nor of inaccuracy, nor any other concern which would cause a change to be necessary; as such, the consensus both spoken (presented above) and unspoken (the fact that a peer review, GA review and FA review at no point flagged this "issue") would say that there's no point taking a deviation from the MOS just because it's possible to do so. GRAPPLE   X  21:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You're entirely right that it is consensus that must decide this one (and not the MOS - as you have almost acknowledged, the MOS is useless in regard to this issue and there's simply no rule to appeal to). As you can see, your choice has irritated several readers, but several others don't seem to mind it. Maybe I'm in a minority in finding it absurd. But let's give it a chance and see if anybody else agrees with me. If so, maybe we can figure out some kind of consensual compromise. Cop 663 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)