Star Trek Into Darkness was nominated as a good article in the Media and drama category but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Reviewed version: July 17, 2013
Notice about spoilers: Wikipedia strives to cover topics in an encyclopedic manner. Per its guidelines on spoilers, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality."
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.
Content being delted based on "souce is unreliable"
user:220.127.116.11 added cited content that was of value to the article, User:PrairieKid then delted the content with the explination "Badass diet isn't a good source", I then reverted his revert, not seeing any reason that badassdigest.com was a "bad source". Someone needs to justify why badassdigest.com is a worse source than half of the sources in this article, for example: Screenrant.com Movieweb.com Comingsoon.net Trekmovie.com Deadline.com, they seem no more or less reliable than badassdigest.com. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
One rule of thumb is to look at ownership in the websites' footer. Screenrant.com has Screen Rant, LLC. Movieweb.com has MovieWeb™, Inc. Trekmovie.com has SciFanatic Network. Deadline.com has PMC Network (and is probably the most reliable of the whole bunch, too). Erik (talk | contribs) 19:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Badass Digest is not a RS. I did find another source and have readded the content, in a more appropriate section and not in a Bare link URL cite. PrairieKid (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for finding annother source (that is undeniably reliable). but why is badass digest not reliable? It's the internet anyone can buy a domain and set up an llc so the argument of looking at the ownership is specious. This is a socratic question about wikipedia in general: How do we decide what makes a site relable because WP:RS is pretty ambigious on the subject? CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You look for evidence of an editorial staff (not just bloggers who can post whatever they want with no theoretical oversight), you look for said authors being considered experts or qualified sources in their own right, you look for the owners being reputable themselves, and you look for their opinions or news being cited by other reliable sources. It's not a hard and fast rule because each case is different. Many sources might end up becoming considered reliable after they have an established track record. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Just saw this prohibition embedded in the main edit-page, and was wondering why this is — he's actually named/called "Khan Noonien Singh" onscreen in the movie (by Leonard Nimoy's character), so that's definitely canonical. Only curious, more than anything else, really. --The Bandsaw Vigilante (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No. He is referring to the KNS of his timeline. Nothig else in the film supports him being the cannon KNS we all know. If you look at the closing credits - he is only credited as "Khan" and finally don't forget that Khan is a title and not a name. Just because he is Khan, doesn't make him KNS. MisterShiney✉ 20:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
It's ironic that I'm tempted to say "he's obviously intended to be KNS" but have to catch myself as I realize that if any other editor said that I'd accuse them of original research. That said, it should be easy enough for any editor who wishes to do so to locate a third-party source establishing that it was the intention for the two Khans to be the same character. It's certainly been talked about enough. DonIago (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
That's getting incredibly nitpicky. Of course he's Khan Noonien Singh, who else would he be? He is called so in the movie; even if it's a name that comes from the "prime" universe, it's still totally canon. He certainly didn't legally remove the second part of his name while in the ice. —Will(B) 21:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anybody's arguing as to whether it's a nitpick, but nitpicks are what starts original research arguments. The best approach would be to provide a reliable source and make the argument moot. DonIago (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
"Don't forget that Khan is a title and not a name.." I'm intrigued, MisterShiney, what evidence would you advance to support that? I recall in the film that Cumberbatch says rather clearly, "My name is Khaaaan", and in Space Seed Montalban says, "Khan is my name". Have I missed something? Nsign (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The title Star Trek Into Darkness is ambiguous (and perhaps obviously so) in the sense that: the title may refer to "star trek into darkness" hence Star Trek into Darkness, or the title's "into darkness" part may be a subtitle hence Star Trek: Into Darkness. The titles Journey into Fear, Long Day's Journey into Night and He's Just Not That into You, on the other hand, are contiguous parts of speech, which might not be the case with Star Trek Into Darkness. So, in hypothesis or theory:
"Star Trek into Darkness" + "Star Trek: Into Darkness" → "Star Trek Into Darkness"
-- Lindberg 16:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
A more probable explanation: Damon Lindelof doesn't like colons, and used his power as a producer to omit a colon where it would traditionally have been placed in the title. RocioNadat 00:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Having a secondary source to cite is in line with the spirit of Wikipedia, I grant you that. (For that matter, the explanation found in the link you've mentioned could be incorporated into the article.) -- Lindberg 07:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr (talk • contribs)