This article is within the scope WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.
Isn't it "Star Trek: Generations" and not "Star Trek Generations"? Byelf2007 (talk) 5 May 2012
Okay okay, so the article says it doesn't have a colon but the title says it has a colon. Which is it? Mainerd (talk) 13 September 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This article should be titled "Star Trek Generations". This is how it appears on the official website. Note that it is the first movie that appears on the website without a colon. The preceding movie is called "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country", i.e. WITH colon; earlier movies all have a colon. Note also that all movies AFTER this movie appear without colon. This move from using to not using a colon should be reflected in Wikipedia. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone apparently moved it back a year ago and I never noticed. I've reverted it back to the proper (no colon) title. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe the title should be reverted to have a colon. Let's please not have Into Darkness syndrome. All of the other films for TNG have a colon, and it is highly inconsistent that this film be without one. I saw what was referred to in the above argument pertaining to the Star Trek website, and I can't help but cringe. Star Trek: Generations has been marketed with a colon for years. Important: Seeing as every single other Star Trek aside from Star Trek Into Darkness has been placed with a colon on Wikipedia, and throughout the web, this is just crazy inconsistent. There are also inconsistencies on this very page, too. The Star Trek website is just rewriting history. A colon is how it should be, and is how it has always been. ~WB, July 03, 2013Wesbrooks (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that it is a clear-cut case that there is no colon in the title. WP:TITLE says, "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." Consequentially, it is not a criterion to stick to the primary source. We have changed other film titles to fit Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In this case, looking at secondary sources referring to this film in Google Books, News, and Scholar, there exist both Star Trek Generations and Star Trek: Generations. In short, both are viable options here. However, one can argue that the spirit of WP:RETAIN and WP:DATERET applies here, that making a change is inconsequential. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd further add that the title can be read as the phrase "'Star Trek'(Adj.) Generations" (or "Generations of the type being 'Star Trek'"), thus it is not that the colon is indispensable for the title and whomever dropped it was trying to be cool. (Just as with "Star Trek Into Darkness" can be read "'Star Trek'(v) Into Darkness", the colon not mandatory). The colon would be necessary if there was a number there, or if it was a split sentence (like Star Trek: First Contact), but that's not necessarily the case here. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
As the saying goes 'you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts'. And the fact is there is no colon in the title. 'Star Trek Generations' the name of the film. Just because some secondary sources got the name wrong and inserted a colon where is doesn't belong, doesn't mean that their error should be validated here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that there is a objectively right answer here. Film titles will be styled certain ways that do not fit the Manual of Style. "Generations" has been treated as a subtitle by both primary and secondary sources; it was the filmmakers' choice to leave out the colon. It does not mean we are beholden to do the same. Seven (film) and Alien 3 are MOS examples of stylized titles. Here, I would say the matter is less crucial, but I would not oppose delineating the title and subtitle for this encyclopedia's purposes. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it bears repeating that 'you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts'. Film titles are copyrighted and registered properties. Their title is their title, their legal title. That is a fact. And this is not a stylized title like Seven (film) or Alien 3 so your point is irrelevant. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
You could be more considerate in your responses. "Generations" has been treated as a subtitle, so it is a minor style issue to leave out the colon. Similar rationales are applied to how film titles are capitalized; the MOS overrules the stylized capitalization if reliable sources have done this. Sssssss and They Call Me Mister Tibbs! are examples of this; for the latter, "Mister" is fully capitalized or underlined compared to the other words. A line break-related example would be Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, which I believe does not use the dash in advertising (just line breaks), but "Ghost Protocol" is treated as a subtitle and rendered as such. So I disagree that reliable sources are erroneous here in inserting a colon; it is just a valid alternative way to write the title. This and this are a couple of key examples that do this. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
"Generations" may have been treated mistakenly as a subtitle by some, but that doesn't mean we have to legitimize their error. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn" is sometimes refered to at TWOK, it is just a short hand. Same is true other films like "Independence Day", often refered to as ID4. That doesn't mean the title of the articles on those films is changed to reflect the short hand reference. But the titles of other films are irrelevant. "Star Trek Generations" is the official title of this film, with no colon. It is what the official website calls it. It the title the film is copyrighted under. And while some secondary source may erroneously insert a colon, many others do not. Such as: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Generations. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Erik, this sort of seems like a needless rehashing of the Into Darkness debacle. The official source uses Generations without a colon; so do many other official sources. Likewise many perfectly reputable and reliable sources use a colon. But it seems best to defer to the styling that the actual owners of the property use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)