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."
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.
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.
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)
Wouldn't it be original research to suggest he isn't Khan Noonian Singh? All sources pretty clearly indicate that Cumberbatch was reprising the Montalban role. A character whose history prior to Abrams' reboot really hasn't changed at all. I don't get why that would even be in question. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Not just that, but the in-universe point of divergence between the original timeline and the reboot timeline is Nero's incursion into 2233. At that point, KNS had already been in suspended animation for over 100 years. The point of divergence between the KNS of the original timeline and the KNS of the reboot is the manner in which he was initially revived (by Kirk / by Marcus). There is zero justification either in or out of the canon for asserting that Cumberbatch is portraying anyone other than the identical individual that Montalban previously portrayed. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I really have to agree with most of the others here. Cumberbatch is playing the same character that Montalban did. That is why Spock(Nimoy) refers to him using his full name. If it is a different character that scene of the younger Spock asking advice of the older Spock is completely irrelevant. The assertion that it is a different character and that Kahn is a title and not a name is totally baseless and absurd. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I find it ironic that in the section where we're told not to use his name, we kinda have no choice but to link Khan to Khan Noonien Singh. We do seem to be using his full name in other sections of the article, but it's the plot summary where I don't think the warning is appropriate.
However, I want to comment on MisterShiney's assertion that "Kahn" is a title. I was wondering where this idea came from, as I've never heard this stated in-universe before. Turns out "Kahn", as a title, is from the Greg Cox novels. Not anything from official cannon. In either event, it's not really relevant. In addition, we're linking to the Khan Noonien Singh article, which lists Star Trek Into Darkness as one of his appearances. His divergent history is even mentioned in the lede, and he's never treated as, potentially, a different person. Why? Because his full name is stated out loud in the movie, with not even a minor inference that he's a different character altogether. No credible sources even suggest he's a new character. All discuss him as the original, including the film's production crew. His character has established Trek history with an established Trek backstory. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but waiting for sources to say he definitely isn't a new character would be an argument from silence. The Botany Bay part is probably okay to keep in, because it's true it wasn't mentioned by name. But the warning on Khan's full name, at the very least, should be removed. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
If I may interpose, here is a link to an official startrek.com "writer's log" with the writer of the tie-in Khan comic miniseries.  The interview mentions that film writer Roberto Orci was involved in the making of the tie-in comic, and the comic writer refers to the STID character as "Khan Noonien Singh". As shown in this 6 page preview  the STID character identifies himself in-universe as "Khan Noonien Singh". Can I say that authorial intent, or rather film writer intent, is clear that the STID character is indeed named "Khan Noonien Singh"? Transphasic (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't seem an issue to describe Khan in Into Darkness as Khan Noonien Singh; logically, he's the same character, in terms of reliable sources and the primary text he's mentioned as the same character. That he's credited solely as "Khan" and that Khan in the film is cagey about it just seems to be an oddity explained by any number of factors, and doesn't seem like something we have to stress over, or try and divine authorial intent about. Insofar as he's credited in the film as "Khan", we regularly give full character names in the cast lists that don't specifically correspond to how they're listed in the film. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
What if we compromise with something like a line in the Cast section like "The original "Space Seed" episode gives his full name as Khan Noonien Singh."? Transphasic (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
User Justin.Parallax has reverted my addition to the page (see this revision), explaining it with "Pure fancruft I'm afraid, please remember that wp is for casual readers."
I do not agree, because I believe that it's an important fact (also for casual readers) that the Klingon spoken in the movie is true klingon, and not just any gibberish. It's part of the production, although a minor detail. If not here, perhabs there is a different page where this information might be more approriate? I might move it to Klingon language. -- Lieven (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree that it would be more relevant in Klingon language. It is far more noteworthy on that page than it would be here. Cool cool. Justin.Parallax (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
But nobody would go from here to there to learn about the klingon language with no reason, so it should at least be mentioned in this page that Klingon was used at all. Next, compare Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock to see how much detailed "fancruft" is possible in only one article, talking about costumes, props, and makeup, I believe that a constructed language made only for the movie is also an important part of the production. -- Lieven (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
"Pure fancruft" is not assuming good faith, and I also think it is unfair to call Wikipedia "for casual readers". Per WP:5P, "[Wikipedia] combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." We can discuss whether or not this information is indiscriminate, but I found this at MTV.com about the Klingon language in Star Trek Into Darkness. There are probably more sources to be found, and we could have a reasonable passage about the language in the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith, I simply don't feel that a segment dedicated to this (very small) part of the film is noteworthy. We don't have a dedicated segment about Elvish in the Lord of the Rings films, and in general fictional languages are not of significant interest to anyone outside of the dedicated fanbase (hence why I called it 'fancruft'). It's not any attempt to disparage it, so please do not assume that. I have posted what I feel to be an appropriate compromise.Justin.Parallax (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If we are talking about not having a section or subsection about the language, that's fine. I agree with weaving it into the production section. It's usually best to create a separate section if there is enough content in that particular scope. (For one example, Wolf Totem (film)#Animal training.) The problem with the word "fancruft" is pejorative; see WP:FANCRUFT. Our determinations on whether or not to include information should be based on explanations from independent sources, per WP:IINFO. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Now that the furor has died down perhaps the reception section can be revisited
The reviews launch "bounce" was as well stage-managed and manufactured as might be expected but the film's generally underwhelmed audiences. Now that the PR people are not watching Wiki, perhaps this section can be revisited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Not really a need to, as I see it. Critical reception didn't change from those weeks because more time has passed, and that's what the article is reflecting. Mainstream reviewers had more positives to say about the film than negatives, and that's reflected here. General blogosphere fan reaction over a year later doesn't warrant revisiting those reviews unless they made some kind of significant impact recently. I can only assume from your comments that you think Wikipedia is easily swayed (and even monitored) by the movie studios putting the film out. I can assure you such an attempt would be a futile one. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)