Talk:Malcolm (Malcolm in the Middle)

Move to Malcolm "(Malcolm in the Middle character)" or something like that
The name Wilkerson is not prominently featured in the series. It was discarded very early on, and viewers know the characters only by their given names. In my opinion, the article should be moved to Malcolm (TV character) or Malcolm (Malcolm in the Middle Character). —AldeBaer 13:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I don't really see a reason that the move does any good.  I can't imagine that someone is going to put either of those into a the search engine, for instance.  I think that we should only use parenthetical disambiguation when it's necessary.  Croctotheface 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that using the name "Wilkerson" beyond mentioning that it was an idea by the makers of the show and that it was quickly discarded is simply inaccurate and misleading. The character's name is not "Malcolm Wilkerson" but simply Malcolm. —AldeBaer 14:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the message on my talk page, but I have this article on my watch list, so it's not necessary. I don't know that we can say for sure that his name isn't Wilkerson.  I do know that "TV character" is not a good way to disambig, so it would need to be the long and clunky "Malcolm in the Middle character" business, which I don't like.  Besides, whether Wilkerson was intended to be part of the show or not, it shows up in the pilot, so it is.  It shows that the family members are related, which neither of the other disambig strategies would do. Croctotheface 14:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The titles need not show that the characters are related, all about this is in the articles. You see, the nature of fiction is that it's not necessarily coherent. Since this article is not about Malcolm Wilkerson in the first episode of the show "Malcolm in the Middle" but about the character throughout the show, it is indeed inaccurate to use a name for the character that was only used for the pilot episode. For the entire rest of the seven season run, the character's name was only "Malcolm". This is not a question of beauty or taste, but of plain accuracy. A title like "Malcolm (XXX)" my appear clumsy, but Wilkerson is not an alternative. In my opinion. If can't build consensus on this between the two of us, I suggest asking for additional input at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, since I didn't find anything in the guidelines for a specific case like this (although I'm fairly sure the fact that the character's name was "Wilkerson" only during the first of 151 episodes of the show means that calling the character "Wilkerson", esp. in the title, is inaccurate). —AldeBaer 14:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What about making Malcolm (TV character) and Malcolm (Malcolm in the Middle character) redirects to Malcolm Wilkerson? --דניאל - Dantheman531 16:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern is not that this article (and the others) cannot be found, but that they are incorrectly titled. —AldeBaer 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion The character's name is given as "Malcolm" at the IMDb, with no last name provided, so I presume that this is the name by which the character is widely known and that many fans of the series who aren't devotees would not know to include Wilkerson in their search. the Fox website also does not include the last name. However, all of the other character pages are listed as "Lois Wilkerson", etc., and standardization is important. It does seem to be common to list TV show characters by first name+last name when possible, even if those names are not widely used. The only characters I find on a search of (tv character) are those who do not have last names or who need disambiguation from similarly named articles. (I only examined a few pages, though.) The characters are linked through the master article, and a search of "Malcolm (Malcolm in the Middle)" brings up the t.v. show as its top hit. I don't see the move as necessary. If there is some concern about finding the article, I wonder if a redirect page at Malcolm (TV Character) leading to the existing article location would satisfy? --Moonriddengirl 16:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly have no objection to the redirect pages. Croctotheface 16:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as my primary concern regarding the inaccurate title goes: I agree that standardization is important. I decided to put this proposal here because Malcolm is the title character, and so as not to split up the discussion, but of course my proposal includes moving all of the articles to their accurate titles. Again: I'm convinced that this is not a matter of beauty or taste or actually of any choice at all, but of compelling logic and following our policy on original research. To be honest, I didn't expect any resistance, and indeed so far I can see no thing in the arguments that would convince me that the Wilkerson name should be included in the titles. As mentioned in the main article, the name Wilkerson is mentioned only once in the entire series, in the show pilot, when Francis speaks to Lois on the phone and his name tag says "Wilkerson". However, in the series finale, there are two unambiguous, unmistakable references that the Wilkerson name was discarded and effectively revoked and that the characters have only first names: One is when Francis' employee badge falls out of his pocket and the camera close-up reveals his last name as Nolastname, the second is when Malcolm is introduced to give the graduation speech and a static noise makes the last name inaudible. In short, renaming the articles to "Malcolm Nolastname" and so on would be more accurate than using the Wilkerson name. Like Moonriddengirl said, the official Fox page for the show mentions no last name (Malcolm, Lois,, Reese). Bryan Cranston on his official website goes even further: he answers several related questions by saying that the crew jokingly used the name "Nolastname". Christopher Kennedy said in an interview with the BBC that the family has no last name. —AldeBaer 18:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me in that case (and based on your note on my talk page) that this matter goes beyond this article and should probably draw participation from related pages, since any consensus you reach here might spark fresh contention when you attempt to standardize there. I'd like to suggest that you launch the conversation on one of the pages (this one or perhaps Malcolm in the Middle, since it is the trunk article of which these are branches) and put notes on each of the major connected pages advising of the issue and inviting input. --Moonriddengirl 19:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the content of show itself basically indicated to the audience that the family does have a last name, but it was not going to be revealed. Otherwise, there would be no reason to have the squawk over the loudspeaker to cover up his last name,  However, in my mind, it was revealed in the pilot.  As such, the current method is the best way to disambiguate this Malcolm from every other Malcolm out there. Croctotheface 19:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that logic is flawed in that there is a difference between the family having a last name within the fictional universe (which is a safe assumption) and the characters' actual names as used in the series (only by their forenames) and on the official page and in interviews with the crew (no last name, or "Nolastname"). As I said, since the series finale changes the name to Nolastname, and it is the name used by the crew among themselves, as Bryan Cranston said (and Jane Kaczmarek as well) the articles on the family members should be renamed to Nolastname or only the first names, in recognition of the show's concept of not giving them a last name. You see, I could add well-referenced text to each of the articles that —as a concept— the family has no last name and that "Wilkerson" was only in the original draft for the pilot and featured only on a name tag visible (without any special focus on it) in a single scene. That would be in stark contrast to the article titles featuring "Wilkerson", don't you agree? If you insist on identifiers, the articles should be moved to "Nolastname", which is more accurate since it is the last mention of a last name. —AldeBaer 19:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence from the series that the family lacks a last name. In fact, as I said, evidence from the series very expressly supports the idea that they have a last name.  I reject any claim, regardless of the source, that the last name for the family does not exist.  I think that the leap required to accept that, within the fiction, their last name is "Nolastname" is much greater than that required to accept that it is Wilkerson.  I do not accept the argument that the "last" mention of something resembling a surname is somehow more compelling.  Because there is no evidence that the family actually lacks a last name, just that the audience is not meant to know what it is, and because there is a need to disambiguate this Malcolm from every other Malcolm in the least obtrusive way, then I still tend to favor the current arrangement. Croctotheface 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence for "Nolastname" is what I cited from the series finale. It is just as strong as what you are reyling on with "Wilkerson", and it came later which is of course very important. Nolastname, or no last name. Wilkerson is definitely wrong. —AldeBaer 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Coming later in the fiction really doesn't mean anything to me. There are plenty of reasons that "Nolastname" could be on a nametag.  It's a leap to assume it's actually a surname.  There's really only one reason for "Wilkerson" to be on a military uniform.  Croctotheface 20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with Aldebaer here. Fictional character articles should never use obscure surnames in their names. I had a big argument with most of the Final Fantasy Wikiproject over their habit of using seldom/never-used surnames for character articles and sections. For example, Aerith redirects to Aerith Gainsborough. My problem with the practice is that it embodies the three problems with in-universe writing; it's misleading, it gives undue weight and it tends towards original research. Malcolm Wilkerson is more elegant than Malcolm (Malcolm in the Middle), until you consider that to avoid misleading the reader, the article will need to prominently state in the intro that Wilkerson is only used in the pilot and never again.-- Nydas (Talk) 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've watched the show on and off for years, and never heard the name Wilkerson. Have to agree with AldeBaer here. I favor Malcolm (TV character).- Crockspot 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Malcolm (TV character) is not the kind of style used for fictional characters. I was actually put off by the case for moving, in part, because of the possibility that it would end up at a page with that kind of title.  Malcolm (Malcolm in the Middle) is the clear way to go if these end up being moved.  I actually think that omitting the "character" helps mitigate the awkwardness problem I had.  It implies "Malcolm from MitM" rather than "some TV character named Malcolm", which could be any TV character named Malcolm. Croctotheface 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also favor the Malcolm (Malcolm in the Middle) format. —AldeBaer 22:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just let me echo Nydas here. I've had similar debates about this kind of thing at Daffy Duck and Donald Duck with people trying to move them to Daffy Dumas Duck and Donald Fauntleroy Duck based on one-time gags from one-shot cartoons. It isn't the job of the Wikipedia editor to try to discern what is reality in a fictional universe. We are not to conclude anything from fictional source material that isn't cut and dried. And the matter of Malcom's family's last name is definitely not cut and dried. Since there's doubt, choosing one name over the other is a form of original research, fancruft, and undue weight. What would professional television critics do? Certainly not use the one-off 'Wilkerson". — Brian ( talk ) 22:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Saw the note to comment from WT:WAF. While I can understand using a somewhat trivial last name as a form of disambiguation, I think this is one case where the disambig (Wilkerson) would actually confuse readers, rather than help them find the correct article. I would favor dropping Wilkerson from the article title. -- Ned Scott 03:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This argument is the first that has caused me to really contemplate supporting the move in a serious way. Basically, as I can imagine someone getting this article as a search engine hit and not knowing who Malcolm Wilkerson is.   I still do not accept many/most of of the other rationales people brought up (Daffy Duck, for example, does not pose a disambiguation problem, so it's not the same kind of case), but I think that Malcolm (Malcolm in the Middle) and so forth have enough advantages that the current scheme does not to merit the move.  Croctotheface 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ned Scott, Brian and others who have pointed out that Malcolm Wilkerson is confusing and/or incorrect. The title should be Malcolm (Malcolm in the Middle). --Serge 23:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)