Yikes, I didn’t even notice that one. Wow. That should be “lead Wayanses,” of course.

But maybe we should check with the Orlando Sentinel to make sure it’s not their official style. They might be intentionally flouting the rule in favor of a more stylish, simple, and modern practice, since “Wayanses” is so awkward and silly. Forming the plural of Wayans as Wayans’ violates every grammar book in the world, just as forming the plural of Wayans as Wayans does. But as long as they do it consistently, what’s the problem?

“Keenen Ivory Wayans and the least funny of the gang, Shawn Wayans, were lead Wayans’ [wtf?] in the all-Wayans script,”

then it’s worth all the bandwidth in the world, Roger.

“A Whole Lotta Turds and Wayans”

which ties everything together nicely.

Oh, I dunno. Not necessarily. My first thought for the headline was “Too much turds and Wayans,” and then I got hung up on whether I wanted “too much” or “too many.” In the original phrase, “curds and whey,” it would easily be “too much”: curds can be counted (how many?), but whey cannot (how much?). So when you combine them, the whole thing becomes uncountable: too much curds and whey.

With “turds and Wayans,” though, I’d changed both words of the original phrase, and now it didn’t seem quite as easy as just swapping out “too much curds and whey” (a common food combination) with “too much turds and Wayans” (not so common). Then I realized what was making me think that: “Wayans” sounds like a plural, and if it were, “turds and Wayans” would indeed require “too many.” But “Wayans” isn’t plural, that “s” notwithstanding. It’s singular — and uncountable — just like “whey” is. Thus, combining it (“Wayans”) with something else, even something countable, makes the whole thing uncountable.

Having now arrived at “Too much turds and Wayans,” I discovered that my headline was too short. There’s a space of 35-40 characters for the front-page headlines, and I like to keep them as close to that exact length as I can, for aesthetic reasons. Of the variations I tried, “Just 83 minutes of turds and Wayans” was the best fit. By now, though, I’d forgotten about needing a lead-in phrase to “turds and Wayans” that would signify it as an amount rather than a specific number, the way “too much” would have done. “Just 83 minutes of turds and Wayans” works both ways (the same as “a lot of” would have), but, as you note, most people would think of it one way before they’d think of it the other way.

A parallel example. You could say a movie has much failure in it, or you could say it has many failures. You could also say, “This movie has a lot of ____” and put “failure” or “failures” in the blank. “A lot of” is ambiguous, as is “Just 83 minutes of.” That was my mistake: using a lead-in phrase that was ambiguous (and where my intended meaning was the less-common one), rather than one that was definite.

83 minutes of turds and Jay gives the distinct impression that there is only one Jay in the film. Do you really expect the reader to interpret “turds and Jay” as a reference to the abstract and uncountable concept of the borthers Jay? Turds and Jays better conveys your meaning, which is that the film is full of what we have come to expect from the borthers Jay (or Wayans).

I don’t misunderstand your justification for using Wayans rather than Wayanses, I just find your justification entirely pretextual.

I wouldn’t have written that headline with any name other than Wayans (or, I guess, another name that sounds like “whey”).

[ADDED: I thought of one. Wayne. If the Wayne brothers had made this movie, yes, I'd have said "83 minutes of turds and Wayne," for the same reason described below.]

I would also note that the Orlando Sentinel example does not pass the Osmond test. “All the Osmonds in the world” works much better than the extremely clunky “all the Osmond in the world.”

It does sound clunky. A better phrasing — one that would better exemplify the concept the author was going for, one of amount rather than number — would be “No matter how much Osmond [or Wayans] you put in this movie, it wouldn’t help.” We’re talking, in this instance, about how much of something, not how many. And when you’re talking about how much — an amount, rather than a number — it remains singular.

In my headline, “turds and Wayanses” would have worked, too. “Just 83 minutes of…” could lead into “hijinks and shenanigans” (both plural) as easily as “foolishness and idiocy” (both singular), or any combination of them. “Just 83 minutes of shenanigans and idiocy” is both accurate and grammatically correct, just as “83 minutes of turds and Wayans” is. It would take a longer sentence to remove all doubt as to why the singular Wayans was used — “It’s just 83 minutes of turds and Wayans, and it doesn’t matter how much Wayans you spread on it: you still mostly just taste the turds.” As before, replace “Wayans” with something uncountable like “mayonnaise” or “butter” and you see what I’m getting at.

I’ll take your nonresponse as a concession that “turds and Osmonds” works better than “turds and Osmond.” I also appreciate the admission that you used Wayans rather than the grammatically preferable Wayanses for the sake of a pun. That’s fine with me — I agree that accuracy and correctness can be fudged for the sake of a pun.

I would also note that the Orlando Sentinel example does not pass the Osmond test. “All the Osmonds in the world” works much better than the extremely clunky “all the Osmond in the world.”

I look forward to seeing the email exchange with the LA Times. But for those keeping score at home, we have one admitted mistake (LA Times) and two who doggedly defend the use of Wayans in sentences that would normally call for the plural form of a proper name (that would be the Orlando Sentinel and you, Mr. Snider).

Well you should! Wayanses is silly.

They don’t have an in-house style calling for incorrect grammar in cases where correct grammar would look funny.

They don’t? They need one of those!