This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress
In order to avoid breaching 3RR I'm stating this discussion now, although per WP:BRD the onus should be on UTILITY MESSIAH to defend their changes. This article passed several content review processes with a plot section noting its cast in asides as their characters were first mentioned, going through a Good Article nomination, a Peer Review, and a Featured Article candidacy with this convention--at no point was this formatting challenged, and its use was clearly established by long-standing practice and the approval of each of the review processes. As such, WP:STYLEVAR states it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change [...] If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page. No such discussion has been opened, and cavalierly disregarding long-standing style in a featured article without any discussion is bad practice. The addition of a bullet-pointed cast list adds nothing not already presented in the article; it falls afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE (why do we need a listing for "Thomas Coulson as The Boy" when neither "The Boy" nor Thomas Coulson are even mentioned in the article; ditto for the actor Allen Joseph), and serves only to obsfuscate readers by removing names from the context they had in the established version. It is a shame that a comprehensive article can go through such vetting only to be held ransom by an editor who refuses to follow policy or engage but now is the chance to do so. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇꭗ15:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the article (stability is important for Featured articles) so you two can work this out on the Talk page. I expect the edit warring will not continue after protection is lifted. --Laser brain(talk)17:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I don't love the fact the disputed change is the version currently protected but if that's what it takes to get a discussion going then needs must. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇꭗ17:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, both the Boy and Joseph (Mr X., the father) are mentioned in the synopsis (you oughta actually read it), which is why I listed them. Furthermore, if listing the cast in its own section is so "obfuscatory", why is it standard practice for almost every other film article? Why is it such a problem here? I could go on about how none of the reviews touched on this issue or how a decade-old review doesn't make an article infallible (if anything, most featured articles of that age are ripe for a FAR, considering that standards have become more thorough), but I am prepared to let this whole thing go and am glad you actually bothered to make actual points this time (weak ones that could've easily fit in the edit summary, but nonetheless). I will not litigate this further; I hope we can all move on with our lives. UTILITY MESSIAH (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the onus should not have been on me to bring this up, and your approach was problematic from the off—even if you had a reason for the change other than "other articles do it", change is determined by consensus, and you made no attempt to seek that, you edit warred away from the established version until another editor was forced to table the discussion for you. As to "actually reading", you'll noticed that I specified the actors, who are not discussed. That's what makes it indiscriminate information; in an in-depth, 4,000+ word article nothing can be said of the involvement of either actor (and believe me, in researching this thing from scratch they didn't come up once), so what gain is there to add listings like this for them? From now on please follow the basic principle of WP:BRD and discuss any contentious changes instead of edit-warring with no reason other than "other stuff exists" to force through a stylistic change. If you genuinely feel this article should be taken to FAR, by all means, any editor is free to initiate such a review, but if you have any specific concerns with more merit than your opposition to simple formatting differences then you're welcome to share them. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇꭗ23:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did specify Coulson's character (the Boy), and I though that applied to the character of Joseph as well. Thanks for correcting that misunderstanding. UTILITY MESSIAH (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the legacy section and was a bit skeptical regarding two things:
- the book reference and what is said in the beginning does not match at all. Here is the text which it is referencing (I own the book but you can find pdf files too if needed for verification):
Stanley Kubrick is one of my all-time favorite filmmakers, and he did me a great honor early in my career that really encouraged me. I was working on The Elephant Man, and I was at Lee International Studios in England, standing in a hallway. One of the producers of The Elephant Man, Jonathan Sanger, brought over some guys who were working with George Lucas and said, “They’ve got a story for you.” And I said, “Okay.”
They said, “Yesterday, David, we were out at Elstree Studios, and we met Kubrick. And as we were talking to him, he said to us, ‘How would you fellas like to come up to my house tonight and see my favorite film?’ ” They said,“That would be fantastic.” They went up, and Stanley Kubrick showed them Eraserhead. So, right then, I could have passed away peaceful and happy.
David Lynch nowhere mentions meeting Kubrick.
- also the emphasis on hypothetical influence of the film on The Shinning. Which is a rumor, it deserves a mention maybe, but it is still a rumor, and the paragraph is quite misleading by being a bit too affirmative on that part (it is impossible to find somewhere any proof nor origin of those claims).
I know you consider this FA, but I hardly see how some of these things went unsaw. Because this: While working on The Elephant Man, Lynch met American director Stanley Kubrick, who revealed to Lynch that Eraserhead was his favorite film. is straight up unsourced and false. The ref provided doesn't says that.
