Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness

Important note

Please ensure you read all current discussions on this page before adding a new section. The previous contributors to this discussion have reached a compromise for the time being, and several wish to leave the conversation be for now. A summary of our arguments for and against capitalisation can be found here. Thank you for your cooperation. drewmunn (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Good grief -- read all sections?? Couldn't you be more specific and just state that it's the title that's the subject of mass edit warring? Read all sections, ohfergoodnesssakes -- I'll go read the Bible first, it's shorter. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your... valued contribution? The reason this notice is here is because people are going over ground we have covered in detail before. If you want to make a point, it's your responsibility to ensure it's not been made before. drewmunn talk 18:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, collapsible sections would be nice, per this QUINTIX (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose moving the title capitalization discussion to a separate talk subpage. Otherwise, if anyone had anything to say about the article contents, it would get completely lost in the noise in this page... 200.127.94.49 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

More for respect of due process than anything else, I oppose that move. It'd make the main point for discussion gather dust in the corner, when it's/has been the topic for fierce debate. drewmunn talk 13:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

@Jsharpminor re "I'll go read the Bible first, it's shorter.": Amen! There've been over a thousand edits to this page in the past 4 days! (Half of them were by the obsessed single-purpose account User:Xkcdreader.) My experience watching [[Talk:Pink slime]] leads me to expect that until the hype and fervour dies down a few months from now, there will be no consensus about anything to do with the title. -sche (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus after 29 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Star Trek into Darkness → Star Trek Into Darkness – Please see the discussion that has already taken place. I'm requesting the move now, as it's been decided by some that this process should be started. Please add your opinions below so we can gauge people's opinions, and hopefully quantify the results. To support this change, I put forward the official site, where the title is listed as "Star Trek Into Darkness" inside the HTML title element, and the official Paramount YouTube teaser, titled in the same format, as citations. drewmunn (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose. A clear cut case as far as MOS:CT goes which states that we shouldn't capitalise prepositions "containing four letters or fewer". At the moment, any suggestion that there is intent by the film-makers that this is supposed to be a two-part title or a title and a subtitle is pure assumption on the part of the respective editors. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Support. Paramount is the official source. What they call their film should be reflected here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Comment: We need to use caution when referencing promotional materials for determining the article title. Such materials tend to render titles more fully in titlecase. Studios are not trying to follow a manual of style that academic resources like Wikipedia do. At the same time, I do notice that the materials seem to highlight "Into Darkness" as a subtitle (particularly noticeable in the recent teaser). It could be that the filmmakers are trying to accomplish both: "Star trek into darkness" and "Star Trek: Into Darkness". The problem is that this is all speculative; I do not believe we've had an clear-cut explanation that it is trying to be two things or not. Even if this were the case, does that necessarily mean making an exception to the manual of style? As it reads on the face of it, it should be "into". It requires explanation why we would have it in titlecase, and we don't have that beyond our own assumptions. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose. If we went by "official" promotional material only, we'd have articles titled Se7en, L4yer CakƐ or Thir13en Ghosts; thankfully we have enough sense to see that an internal manual of style exists, is clear-cut and reasonable, and trumps external stylistic choices. GRAPPLE X 16:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose. This is a poster child (pardon the pun) of MOS:CT. Plus what Grapple X said.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 11, 2012; 16:41 (UTC) Oppose as per WP:NCCAPS. We take titles from reliable sources, but we don't take stylisations. If further evidence comes to light down the line that "Into Darkness" is conclusively a subtitle and the title is not meant to be a sentence clause then I would support an exemption, but at this point editors are just guessing. It's better to go by the MOS until we know for sure. There are other things we can look at (besides promotional material) once the film is released, like the Copyright catalog and the BBFC to see how it was registered. Betty Logan (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC) The BBFC currently lists the film as titled "STAR TREK - INTO DARKNESS", which muddies the water somewhat. I think we should find a different source... *backs away slowly* drewmunn (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC) New comment I've not seen anything to suggest that it isn't a subtitle. Not in the history of Star Trek has the name "Star Trek" been used where "Trek" is a verb in a longer title. It's always been part of the name of the franchise. There's even trademark reasons for this. What I don't get is where Wikipedia thinks that an argument based solely on WP, where external references are available, somehow trumps those other sources. We are essentially using WP as our OR! Into Darkness is the subtitle. This isn't OR. This isn't opinion. This is sourced fact; with no counter-sources suggesting otherwise. In my opinion, we are using Wikipedia policy to impose an opinion that just isn't in the spirit of WP, just so we can have what? ...consistency? ...consistency with what? All other subtitles are handled as separate from the title in wiki articles. A missing colon means we break that convention? I'm an immediatist, which means I feel this should be made right based on the information we have now. The information we have now says this is a subtitle. Is there a chance this is one long title? Sure, but there's nothing supporting that view right now, and it is looking like a slimmer chance that view is correct with each passing day. However, if evidence shows otherwise at one point, I will be first in line to approve a page move to the confirmed name at that time. But that future time isn't now. Now is now, and now there just isn't a significant number of sources that provide strong support that this is one long title. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 19:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose – our guidelines on styling composition titles and trademarks are clear and consistent, and not wp-unique, i.e. correspond to what some other sources do (like trektoday.com and digitalspy.com). Dicklyon (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Support As many have stated, Wikipedia is one of very few sources that uses a lowercase 'i' in the title. Paramount has written the title differently. This is not like Se7en or Thir13en Ghosts or whatever, it is not only sometimes written differently on some posters. Unless it is in all capital letters, with the exception of one press release I read some time ago and the two sources cited above, it is always Star Trek Into Darkness except here. I don't understand why everyone is hung up on the guidelines for titles set forth by Wikipedia. I don't think it matters whether or not there is punctuation implied or that the "Into Darkness" portion of the title is a subtitle or the continuation of a sentence. If the studio has released the title as "Star Trek Into Darkness" than it should be written as such. While printed journalism has fallen far from what it used to be as far as quality, there is still the Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual that is commonly considered to represent the correct way to write journalistic pieces. The manual is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines in that it states that prepositions in titles should not be capitalized. The vast majority of journalists and editors who have written and edited articles about this film have chosen to ignore that rule in this case. While many of them may just be careless, it is not outside of the realm of possibility that many journalists are aware of the rule and chose to ignore it in this case because it should not apply here. —Kilcoyne (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Support Official sources use uppercase "i". It's not a stylize choice. The stylized choice is the all caps version with the unpronounced dash. Which leads into the next point. Into Darkness is a subtitle, not a continuation of the words "Star Trek". This, by itself, trumps everything else, as it follows in line with WP to place an uppercase "i". This isn't "Gone with the Wind" or "Dawn of the Dead". If it were, the capiization wouldn't be an issue, in my mind. This is a distinct title and a distinct subtitle. Additionally, JJ Abrams is quoted above in Talk stating that this movie's subtitle will not include a colon. Unless the whole name is one subtitle (with no title in and of itself), that wholly makes no sense on our part to read it as a sentence! Even in the stylized version of the title, there's a dash to show that one is a subtitle. "STAR TREK - INTO DARKNESS" This isn't like urban myth of the kid named "Lay-a" pronounced "Lay[dash]a", is it? Clearly no. Which leads me into the next point. We are going well into the realm of original research WP:OP to justify a lowercase "i" where WP is treated higher value than the official sources. I understand the good faith of those who oppose, but their argument is based solely on Wiki as the source! This means that the argument will not end if the oppose position wins our quaint little vote. Once the official trademark or some official press release for this film is seen, this move request will be reinitiated (prolly over and over). For all intents has purposes, the official sources have already stated the correct name in the form of their choosing, and the number of creditable sources is growing by the day. (I wonder if JJ Abrams is reading this article and having a laugh at us. OK, that's not a point, but still funny.) The title should not have been changed in the first place without a discussion. The person responsible for moving this article did so in good faith, but perhaps did not understand the ramifications of that action without a pre-existing consensus. I know this is more of a comment than a point, but we really should take great care in big moves like this. I've seen this in other areas where unsupported actions where made to move articles without even a discussion. It leads unnecessary and lengthy aftermath discussions where blood pressure runs high, like the one above.— fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 21:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Support For goodness sake! I thought this had already been established with the ABOVE discussion!! As per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. Common sense in this case will dictate that if the people who wrote the film put it in caps then it is meant to be in caps, regardless of our policy. Wikipedia appears to be the only source that hasn't capitalised it because it appears that it insists on sticking to the letter of it's polices. Which funnily enough, have the above clause in to allow for a situation such as this where a compromise on the policy can be reached on said policies. Users that cite MOS:CAPS for having it lower case seems to neglect the part of MOS:CT (part of the same policy) which says that In the English titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.), every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words (as defined below). The first and last words in a title are always capitalized. if the word wasn't important, then it again wouldn't have been capitalised in every press release and article since the title was announced. As per the Five pillars of Wikipedia Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone and the principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rules and because Wikipedia aims to be a neutral compilation of verifiable, established facts it needs to be Into because the verifiable, established facts say that the title is "Star Trek Into Darkness" to be a proper compilation, it needs to reflect this information as it is portrayed! Neutrality would also imply that Wikipedia shouldn't impose its own grammar/style onto the article. MisterShiney ✉ 21:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Comment It should be noted also that some editors have already given their reasons for and against the Move/Rename in the above discussion and their views should also be taken into consideration with the final outcome as they may not come back online for a little while, what with it being close to the holidays. MisterShiney ✉ 21:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Support As I stated above, I have always been a strong advocate for following Wikipedia guidelines, but I think that it's clear the title should be Star Trek Into Darkness. Multiple sources have been cited in this argument to show that the capitalized "I" is the accepted form of the title in all other media, and the editors who are adhering to a strict interpretation of Wikipedia rules and procedures, are overlooking the fact that we "will have occasional exceptions". Hopefully we can build a consensus one way or the other, instead of disregarding opinions just because they don't blindly follow certain guidelines. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose Clear case of MOS:CT. There's no need to treat this article differently from other similar articles. All arguments for "common sense" or "meant to be" involve POV and interpretaiton. DonQuixote (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Comment How is it interpretation/POV when it is how the title has been officially released? It is interpretation/POV to change it to what we feel it should be when it is different to how it is released. MisterShiney ✉ 22:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC) The official title actually has no bearing on the matter. If the majority of sources simply called it Star Trek 12—as opposed to the official title—that's what we'd go with as per WP:COMMONNAME. And the styling is something else again. The only relevant issue as far as I can see is whether Into Darkness is a subtitle, and only a subtitle, which may warrant an exemption from the MOS. Betty Logan (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Well according to our own article Abrams has said it is a subtitle. (See title section) MisterShiney ✉ 23:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Well he hasn't actually, has he? If you are referring to the 2009 Spanish interview, well that was three years ago and they were discussing whether it would have a number or not. As far as I am aware, neither the producers or Paramount have confirmed whether Into Darkness is a subtitle, but if there is official confirmation that it is then obviously moving the article would be a no brainer. Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Regardless of when he said it or what they were discussing, we have a source where he said it. The trailer clearly displays it first with Star Trek displayed seconds after, implying that it can be used as stand alone title and it's not just a style choice. MisterShiney ✉ 13:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC) The quote is from three years ago before even the script for the new film was written, so the conversation clearly doesn't relate to the title as it stands now, so taking it out of context is WP:SYNTHESIS. Like I said, I would have no problem in making an exception for this particular case if the argument were based on something solid rather than just what editors think. If Paramount were to announce that it is indeed a subtitle, or indeed use the subtitle on its own to refer to the film then that would be sufficient, but there isn't any evidence of that as yet. Betty Logan (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Invoking "common sense" as an argument is just arguing with a specific POV. Stating that something is "meant to be" without verification is interpretation. DonQuixote (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC) As per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense". If you don't like it take it up with Wikipedia. Nsign (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC) That's irony for you...And "common sense" can also mean that this article shouldn't be treated differently from other similar articles. POV. If you don't like the WP:MOS, then take it up with Wikipedia. DonQuixote (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC) You've been given plenty of explanations by several editors WHY it should be treated differently and obdurately ignored them in favour of saying either "there's this guideline" or repeatedly asking "but please explain why.." I and others are in fact abiding by the guidelines in the WP:MOS which state exceptions can be made using reason and consensus. That's what's happening here. Nsign (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Given that consensus is very clearly split, it would suggest that it wouldn't simply be a matter of "common sense" to make an exception to the guideline in this instance. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Quite so, and no one ever said that "common sense" alone was enough. Logic, reason, available evidence and precedent are all being used to make the case and gain consensus. Nsign (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Well, Mr Shiny's argument is pretty much along those lines, without much more substance, which is where DonQuixote's comments seem to be aimed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC) He's not the only one arguing. And his argument is anyway quite valid within the guideline framework. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC) As with most Rules and regulations, there are going to be exceptions. Which is why they have line in them that we should use our own common sense. If it was one editor saying it, would be all for keeping it, but it isn't. It would also be common sense that we go with what the official site/releases say. MisterShiney ✉ 13:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Again, "using common sense" by itself doesn't mean much. It can be "common sense" to go with what the official site says. However, it can also be "common sense" that they have their own MOS and we have our own MOS. Common sense doesn't actually support either version. Saying that it does is POV. Also, saying "there are going to be exceptions" doesn't mean that this has to be one of them. The rules being flexible just means that the rules are flexible. It doesn't support one version or the other either. Logic, reason, available evidence and precedent says that "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS", "Star Trek Into Darkness" and "Star Trek into Darkness" are all equivalent and it's just a stylistic choice that WP:MOS chooses the last one. DonQuixote (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC) They are not equivalent. One of the three doesn't allow for the reading of "into darkness" as a subtitle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Er...none of the three allows for the reading of a subtitle. Taken by themselves, how can you be sure which words are in the title and which words are in the subtitle? Star: Trek into Darkness? Your reading of "Into Darkness" as a subtitle is your interpretation. DonQuixote (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC) So if its just a stylistic choice let's make it one people are happy with and work within the flexibility the guidelines allow to do that. Rather than one that very contentiously and arguably turns a 40 year precedent for headings and subtitles into a sentence. Nsign (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Making people happy isn't the function of Wikipedia. And, as it has been pointed out above, there is no 40 year precedent because all the previous titles had colons (to separate title from subtitle when written on a single line) and by design this one doesn't. DonQuixote (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC) It isn't its function to be inaccurate. And lack of a colon does not mean there's no subtitle when it comes to titles, as Abrams own statement on the matter would indicate and as has been pointed out numerous times. The precedent is that Star Trek is always a heading, never a sentence. The colon is a minor detail, not the deciding factor. Nsign (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC) It's your opinion that it's inaccurate. That's POV. Please provide a reliable source that says that it's inaccurate. (And see below for your supposed "precedent"). DonQuixote (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC) And its your opinion that it's accurate. That's POV. Please see elsewhere on this page for multiple examples from multiple editors why its inaccurate. Nsign (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC) trektoday.com and digitalspy.com says that it's accurate enough. Again, independent publications have used STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek into Darkness. Some choose the first, some choose the second and some choose the third. Wikipedia is one of those that chooses the third. DonQuixote (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Funny how before you were reluctant to use other sources than the MOS. And Wikipedia has not chosen to use the third. Some editors including you have contentiously chosen to use the third according to a guideline that allows for exactly this kind of exception, and the arguments for the exception are elsewhere on this page from multiple users.Nsign (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Er...no, I wasn't reluctant to use other sources. The point was that what other sources did didn't matter because of the very reason that they used STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek into Darkness. And Wikipedia's MOS chooses the third one; none of us has "contentiously" chosen it. However, some are arguing to change it. That's fine if you can find a verifiable justification to make this an exception to the MOS. Nothing that's verifiable has been provided. DonQuixote (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC) all the previous titles had colons Actually that is incorrect. As per StarTrek.com, the TNG did not have colons. It was a Wikipedia decision to insert them. There is precedent to insert colons. MisterShiney ✉ 17:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Interesting...That opens up another discussion. Checking imdb and rotten tomatoes (sorry, quick search here), imdb lists all of them with colons while rotten tomatoes list all but one with a dash. That makes Star Trek Generations the odd-man out. Thanks for pointing that out. Needs some better research into the matter though. DonQuixote (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Support As stated above by another user, multiple sources have now been cited in support of the capitalized "I" and editors sticking stubbornly to a "guideline" that is open to consensus are wilfully ignoring that fact and dismissing without rebuttal the arguments of others, preferring instead to repeat ad-infinitum "..but there's this guideline.." The evidence has been clearly presented and argued for by several users including myself. Those arguing for “into” are assuming the title is a complete sentence on the basis that it is not punctuated, an argument that is open to interpretation as film/book/TV titles etc do not always follow conventional grammatical rules. The difference in font size, spacing and lettering style of the two phrases on the poster, on the official website and now the teaser trailer clearly indicate that they are a title and a subtitle. Sentences are not generally split or differentiated in this way. The creator of the work is also on record as saying he intended to use a subtitle. If we're going to "assume", let's assume based on evidence, not a guideline that is already flexible and open to interpretation and consensus. The guideline allows for exceptions and the reasons for why this should be one have been clearly and repeatedly stated elsewhere on this page. The weight of available, viewable evidence, coupled with the creators’ statemmaent on the tter and the precedent set in 40 years worth of Star Trek history, strongly suggest Into Darkness is a subtitle with capitals. The only argument offered here for reading it as “Star Trek into Darkness” is that there’s a guideline for it - a guideline that is in fact open to consensus and a common-sense application of logic based on evidence. Nsign (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Support I would have thought this would be pretty cut and paste. Although there is policy for the lower case, there is also policy for the capitalisation and it is supported by the "use common sense" part of all Wikipedia policies saying that, in some cases there would be exceptions. It cant be called a "style choice" like Se7en, L4yer CakƐ or Thir13en Ghosts because they have replaced Characters rather than grammar to be different and stand out from other Movies with something different. The trailer clearly shows "Into Darkness" before Star Trek, thus making it "Into Darkness" as the secondary title to the movie. Your own article says that Abrams said that this film will have a subtitle. 86.184.69.22 (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose per Manual of Style guidelines. Why should this title be given special treatment? The title is clearly meant to be read as a sentence and there is no "stealth colon" or anything like that. The producers of the movie pointedly excluded the colon, thus eschewing the subtitle approach. Furthermore, "into darkness" has been used in a sentence in the official synopsis - "...an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek into darkness." The guidelines are clear and I see no compelling reason why they should be overridden to make a few fans happy. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Opinion. You don't actually know its a sentence, you're assuming. They may have excluded the colon but JJ Abrams is quoted as saying the film would be subtitled. I don't think you've read through the sections above clearly - this ground has been extensively covered. Nsign (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Agreed. Despite when he said that.. MisterShiney ✉ 13:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC) (Not even I know what I meant there) MisterShiney ✉ 15:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Both of you say that there is a subtitle. So why should it not be Star Trek: Into Darkness? After all, the BBC is including a dash of its own accord. "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a stylistic choice that is more subtle than the other examples mentioned here, and the manual of style overrides that. At face value, it is not treated like a subtitle. Scjessey makes an excellent point in highlighting the relevant passage in the synopsis. "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a style incompatible with the manual that Wikipedia uses; to change to that based on this unusual amalgamation is to put it in limbo. It really should be either "Star Trek into Darkness" or "Star Trek: Into Darkness". Erik (talk | contribs) 14:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Inserted comment: Erik, your statement "It really should be either "Star Trek into Darkness" or "Star Trek: Into Darkness". " Since when is this our call to make about how movies should be named? It is Wikipedia's job to just state the facts. If a producer choses to have a title and a subtitle not separated by a colon, that's their call, not ours. Sorry for continuing this conversation, esp after my comment below, but your comment struck me as the whole problem with the oppose stand. We are using Wiki itself to determine what is right and wrong with world, and that's not what Wiki is for. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 20:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I dont know. Let my check with my psychic connection to Abrams! Erik, I respect you as an editor, but please dont ask silly questions. If you are referring to BBC America there isnt a - as you say. What I do know is that people's strict adherence to GUIDElines (emphasis on guide) makes us look like idiots and just puts fuel in the fire of the argument that "Wikpedia isn't reliable because it's edited by the public" because every other newspaper, blog, fan site, official site, production notes, released materials, posters and trailers all have a capital I, despite their having their own MOS. To make the change, doesnt put it in Limbo. Just creates a precedent if something like this was to happen. If it's in conflict then as per my reasons above, we need to use our common sense, and common sense in this case, dictates that we create a more factual article and display it how it has been released! MisterShiney ✉ 15:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC) The creators have specifically stated they wouldn't use a colon and that there would be a subtitle and the weight of evidence suggests that a subtitle is what it is. Having said that, if someone put a colon in I wouldn't be sufficiently bothered to argue against it as it would reflect what I think the evidence suggests - a subtitle. And has been endlessly pointed out, the manual is flexible and open to consensus where necessary. Nsign (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC) The creators specifically stated they wouldn't use a colon, but they said nothing about subtitles. The "evidence" you claim is manufactured - original research by the support crowd. Since there is no concrete evidence that "into Darkness" is a subtitle, it must be read as a sentence. The current title is correct. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Actually, as has been already stated, JJ Abrams is on record is saying that the sequel would have a subtitle: http://trekmovie.com/2009/06/04/report-from-mexico-city-star-trek-press-conference-w-pictures-video/. And the additional evidence is not "manufactured" but taken from official sources and precedents set across the 40 year history of the franchise. Again - this ground has been extensively covered above. Nsign (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC) And, as has been already stated, that article is from 2009 and combining it with the current title four years later is wp:synthesis. And there is no 40 year precedent as all previous titles had colons (to differentiate title from subtitle when written on a single line) while the current one doesn't have one by design. DonQuixote (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC) And wp:synthesis does not apply because it states that sources can't be used to reach a conclusion "not explicitly stated by any of the sources". In this case the conclusion - that there is a subtitle - is explicitly stated as the intention of the creator. And the precedent here is that Star Trek is always a heading, never part of a sentence. The colon is a minor detail, not the deciding factor. Nsign (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC) As mentioned above, taking his statement out of context leads to synthesis. Nowhere does he say "...and that subtitle will be Into Darkness". As for always being a heading and never part of a sentence...who says that every title should follow that format?...who says that all future movies should be titled that way? The colon is a helpful bit of punctuation that helps the reader determine the title from the subtitle. Since there's nothing that specifically says what is a title and what is a subtitle, interpreting a specific portion of the given title as a subtitle is interpretation. DonQuixote (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC) The statement is in context - he is stating that the sequel to Star Trek will have a subtitle. This is an article about the sequel to Star Trek and this dispute is about whether it has a subtitle. The wording of the subtitle is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether there is a subtitle or not and for this we examine the available evidence, precedent and the creators statement of intent on the matter. Assuming it is a sentence is also interpretation. As stated repeatedly now. Nsign (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC) No, that's not in context. You're putting together what was said four years ago with the current title that has been released. That's synthesis. The current title may not have anything to do with what was said in an interview four years ago. DonQuixote (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC) It is entirely in context: its a statement of intent from the creator about the use of a subtitle in the Star Trek sequel. This is a debate about the use of a subtitle in the Star Trek sequel. Not, I add, the wording of the subtitle, just its existence. Nsign (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC) See below. DonQuixote (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, are you serious? The franchise is Star Trek; it is and has always been Star Trek. There's no world where anything but "Star Trek" could be the main title, so if he's on record as stating they will use a subtitle for the sequel to Star Trek, as opposed to Star Trek 12, quite clearly that means Into Darkness is the subtitle on the new Star Trek movie. Or would you really have us believe it could somehow be Star: Trek into Darkness? Because that's just absurd. Magus (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Comment I ask editor on both sides of this issue to refrain from extensive conversation in this voting area. In the end, the vote itself will be counted regardless to the additional arguments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcsuper (talk • contribs) Please read WP:NOTAVOTE. Consensus is built through discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Duly noted. As far as this case goes, right now the vote is close to 50/50, so there is no consensus anyway. Which brings me to another point, the article shouldn't been moved in the first place since there are clear policy arguments on both side of this issue. A neutral arbiter won't be able to make consensus decision either way, at this point, unless there are more than a few new supports more than oppose in the next week. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Actually, if you look at the move log the article has never sat at the capitalised version of the title. It was moved here by consensus from Untitled Star Trek sequel as the result of a move discussion that specifically made reference to the capitalisation issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose; we have our own style guide, which we follow for matters of punctuation and capitalization. The "official" orthography of the title, even if one could be determined, is entirely irrelevant. Powers T 16:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Comment: I don't know if it's been mentioned in this lengthy discussion, but onscreen title graphics virtually never use a colon although subtitles are generally rendered with a colon in text. It's similar with the TV show Married... with Children in which no ellipses appear on screen. It may be that Abrams and the studio are making claims that stir up interest for marketing reasons, but that doesn't mean they can change the English language or stylistic conventions operating under a larger linguistic framework that shilling for a movie. Based on countless past examples, and the fact even the studio concedes the latter two words are the subtitle, style would normally dictate Star Trek: Into Darkness." That said, I see The New York Times in an article (as opposed to the licensed All Media Guide /Rovi content it syndicates and which originates outside the Times) spells it Star Trek Into Darkness at "Dueling Biopics in the Works for Beatles’ Manager" by Allan Kozinn (who generally writes about music, mot movies). The Los Angeles Times also renders it Star Trek Into Darkness at "'Star Trek Into Darkness’ poster has a ‘Dark Knight Rises’ vibe" by Patrick Kevin Day. I have to say I find that perplexing, since capping the I treats the title neither has having a subtitle nor being what's called a dependent phrase, in which "into" would be lowercase. Star Trek Into Darkness with cap I is neither fish nor fowl — yet two respected newspapers use it. I can see why we're having this discussion, and wish I knew the best way to proceed. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC) SUPPORT: As per MOS:CT which clearly states: In the English titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.), every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words. Additionally, every single official source related to the film that I've seen uses Into and as WP:MOS is a guideline not a rule, we should be following their example with this, for example:. Also, considering that the official poster has STAR TREK and INTO DARKNESS on different lines and in different type fonts and size suggest it is meant to be used as a subtitle. note The lack of a colon may simply be so as not to confuse this film with the films from the next generation series. douts (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Not sure where you're coming from here. You cite MOS:CT which says that "into" (as a preposition of four letters) should not be capitalised, yet you support the move. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC) It also states In the English titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.), every word is given an initial capital - combine this with the fact that there are ZERO official sources using a lower case i it's pretty obvious it should be an upper case I. Also as Betty Logan said earlier If the majority of sources simply called it Star Trek 12—as opposed to the official title—that's what we'd go with as per WP:COMMONNAME. By this logic there is simply no argument - the vast majority (if not all) sources use an uppercase I, that is what we should use per WP:COMMONNAME. douts (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC) You're cherry-picking your source there. You're missing the bit where it says "every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words" and it then goes on to define "prepositions containing four letters or fewer" amongst the unimportant words. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here as we all agree on the title, it's how we style that title that we have an issue with. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC) But surely it would be considered OR to determine the value of "less important words" If official sources have determined that the said words are important enough to have a capitalisation, then who are we to argue? MisterShiney ✉ 17:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Rob, the capitalisation of the "i" is crucial to the meaning of the title in the sense that NEVER has the word trek been used as a verb in a Star Trek title and as such not capitalising it results in the title not making any sense whatsoever. It's like saying 'Jack into chair'. Unless the I is capitalised it simply doesn't make sense. douts (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Support I cannot believe that conversation is still going!! Regardless of MOS, Wikipedia should aim to be as close to the officially released material. I wish users would stop being so stubborn and be prepared to bend the "rules" in this case because Wikipedia is not Law, despite what some editors would like to think. These conversations seem to be going around in circles with some editors determined to force their views on others! This has just turned into a shouting match! 31.54.1.37 (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) ... says the person who uses four exclamation points. Powers T 18:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC) This is not a place for personal attacks, Powers. Z 18:52, 13 December 2012 What has the number of explanation points got to do with anything? It was not meant as a personal attack. I think you should read the policy regarding this so as to better understand what they are. It was just an observation. I rarely get involved in wiki articles, but the way this conversation just goes round in circles is reficulius. The same editors are making the same points over and over again and it's coming across as a shouting match. 31.54.1.37 (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC) This request to move is designed to help end any circular conversation. The voting system in this section is designed to allow us to reach consensus, and you have submitted your support. When we close this discussion, the votes will be counted, and action will be taken depending on the majority. At the time of writing, the majority support the move. However, should this change, then we'll stick with a lowercase 'i'. We could reopen this discussion later, such as after the release of the film, or if more solid evidence appears, but until then, the outcome of this discussion will determine the article's future. drewmunn (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Please see WP:NOTAVOTE. Consensus is built through discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Who is this aimed at? drewmunn (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Umm, you. You're talking about "votes" and "majority". It isn't a case of a vote and whoever gets the majority "wins". Consensus is based on the validity of the arguments. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC) In other words, we're back where we started and arbitration will be needed as, on that basis, consensus won't be reached. Nsign (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC) I know it's not as black and white as a count of the hands vote, but this section is designed to bring people's opinions together into something we can take action. Everybody has an opinion, and here they can be registered as their 'vote' (what they feel should be the outcome, rather than just their opinion filtering through a long discussion). This is designed to result in an action, rather than a circular discussion. drewmunn (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Sounds like wishful thinking to me. If "consensus" is based on validity of arguments, and not on, er, actual consensus, we're back in the circle. Nsign (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Not wishful thinking: "[M]ost decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion." And we wouldn't need arbitration. In the event of "no consensus to move", the article would stay where it was. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Although I suppose now you'll tell me that this is just a guideline and we can ignore it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Ignoring the crap attempt at sarcasm, exactly how then is consensus reached? When everyone agrees? When more than half agree? I've never been in this process before and I had assumed that consensus was essentially a majority vote. So if it isn't, what is it? Is there a fixed rule or, indeed, our old favourite, a guideline? And why should the article stay where it is when there is no consensus either way? Nsign (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC) In the case of this article, there are multiple conflicting views, so an external moderator will no doubt make the final decision. They will be required to have no opinion prior to joining the topic, and will read every view written. They will then give weight to people's opinions depending on the validity of their arguments according to existing convention. Basically, we argue for a bit, then someone steps in and tells us who wins. The onus is on each group of people (pro-move and anti-move) to provide the best possible reason for their views to be supported. Consensus is much like time, wibbly-wobbly. Officially, it should be 100% of the people agree, but in situations like this, it's more a case of someone in power deciding if the other side's arguments are valid. For this request to be granted, we have to hope that any moderator agrees with the evidence put forward by the pro-movers; the overwhelming official sources that use capitalisation, past Star Trek movies, and other citations. If they are considered weighty enough to over-rule the anti-movers argument, which is basically centred on MOS, then the move will occur. Otherwise, the article will stay here, and we're back to circular discussion! drewmunn (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC) OK, that sounds fair enough. Nsign (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC) WP:CONSENSUS may help - there would have to be clear consensus in favour of the pro-movers in order for this page to be moved. In the event of "no consensus to move" the page would stay where it is, especially seeing as it is titled in line with the style guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC) I can't see a definition for "clear consensus" in there. Is it majority view or not? Nsign (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC) It's based on the validity of the arguments, the weight of existing guidelines, and isn't really concerned with raw numbers of !votes. One person citing a valid guideline will outweight ten people arguing against but with no convincing case; which is why an uninvolved party will usually be needed to evaluate the sides being presented. GRAPPLE X 15:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC) OK thanks - I'd be happy with that solution. Nsign (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Support. First of all, from a grammatical standpoint, "Star Trek into Darkness" is not by any means a complete sentence, so the suggestion that the title is "clearly meant to be read as a sentence" is absurd. Secondly, promotional materials for the film make it very clear that "Star Trek" (in smaller typecase) and "Into Darkness" (in larger typecase) are two completely separate phrases within the title (they even appear seperately on the title card in the trailers). Thirdly, press material from the studio, including the film's official website, list the film as either "Star Trek Into Darkness" or have the title stylized in all caps (nowhere is "Into" ever spelled with a lowercase "i"). Finally, I have not been able to locate one instance where the title has been stated (by Abrams, producers, cast, or anyone else involved) as "Star Trek into Darkness;" rather, it is always referred to as "Star Trek (beat) Into Darkness" or just "Into Darkness." Z 18:52, 13 December 2012 Comment: Today, Paramount began using hashtags on Twitter. They have #StarTrek and #IntoDarkness as two separate hahstags whenever they are used by Paramount's official account. See this tweet for an example. Is this enough proof that Paramount treat them as two separate entities? drewmunn (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Simply, no. Hashtags are just marketing devices. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC) When does something move on from being a marketing device to being something you'd class as acceptable proof? drewmunn (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC) When the title has anything other wording or punctuation than "Star Trek Into Darkness". No-one denies that this is the title, but we have our own house style for capitalisation that seemingly isn't the same as the film producers'. However, we should use our style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Comment: Some more official sources that use "Into" rather than "into": Paramount UK press release, Official Star Trek UK Paramount Facebook page, Official Twitter profile, and Official Pinterest creator thingy. There are more regional variants of the Facebook page, but I won't list them all. drewmunn (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Official sources are irrelevant in this case. This is a style issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC) But it's useless us blindly applying our style choices without looking at the official sources; if our MOS stipulated that the word Star Trek must always be followed by a colon in film names (something not too outlandish prior to the reboot), would we still do it for Into Darkness? I doubt it, because there isn't one in any official source. If we relied only on the MOS, and never looked at the source, then we wouldn't be particularly good at evolving to suit new needs. drewmunn (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC) The addition of colons in that manner would not be a style choice, as it would change the syntax. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC) So does not capitalising the "i". Without a capital, it can only be read as a sentence, not as the two separate phrases hinted at by capitalisation. By choosing to style it "i", you are forcing readers into making it one sentence, something that not only looks odd, but doesn't seem to fit the evidence given by official sources. drewmunn (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC) That's your interpretation and WP:OR. Who knows what is "hinted at"? That's the kind of thing we would need the sources for before considering deviation from our own MOS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC) I'm not saying anyone's hinting at anything, I'm saying we can hint at something ourselves. By capitalising, we're saying that it could be two phrases, or it could be a single sentence. As for sources, what would you consider conclusive enough? I've listed plenty above, as have others, that corroborate our POV that capitalisation is official. drewmunn (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC) I mean we need sources that discuss what is hinted at by, the intention of, and the meaning behind the capitalisation before we should consider deviating from our own style guide. That it's capitalised in press releases isn't in dispute. Like I said, it's a style issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC) A source such as the creator of the work saying he intends to use a subtitle, for example? Again - the weight of available, viewable evidence coupled with the creators statement of intent and the precedent set across a 40-year franchise history which has never used the word Trek as a verb strongly indicate a subtitle. The "style" is flexible and should reflect the spirit of Wikipedia in favour of accuracy §rather than contentious and conspiciously strange stylistic preference. Nsign (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC) All that is synthesis. You're combining things that have happened in the past with what's happening now. This may or may not be the case. Please provide a reliable source that verifies your interpretation and original research. DonQuixote (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC) No it doesnt. Doesnt matter when Abrams said it. Point is he said it! It is not original research. As said on the "In a Nutshell" part of original research says that "ALL material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves." It is published in multiple sources that "Star Trek Into Darkness" has a capitalised the I. I put it to the opposition that it is in fact Original Research on the part of Wikipedia editors to put a lower case/correct grammar/enforce their views. Now prove your not. Point is, we dont know what the producers were thinking when they decided on the title and we can go around in circles as long as we want. But we are going around in circles. Therefore, so we are not providing our own Original Research/Synthesis, we should fall back on what the official sources say. Because by enforcing a lower case, that is what we are doing. MisterShiney ✉ 17:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC) You're conflating two arguments. Saying that Abram's quote is about STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, when that title isn't even mentioned, is synthesis. It has nothing to do with the other argument which is that STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Trek into Darkness are styles that have been used by different independent publications. That has nothing to do with synthesis. Saying that the second version is the one-and-only correct style is POV without a source that verifies it (which also makes it original research). Please provide a source, as has been asked before, that verifies that "Into Darkness" is a subtitle or that verifies that the title is unique and exempt from WP:MOS guidelines. DonQuixote (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC) You're confused. The wording of the subtitle is irrelevant. The fact that the creator is on record as saying a subtitle would be used for this film is the key fact. What that subtitle would be worded as is not being debated by anyone. The existence of a subtitle is. Please see elsewhere on this page for multiple arguments from multiple users why Into Darkness should be considered a subtitle. Nsign (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC) The wording is important because it hasn't been established that it is a subtitle. Someone other than wikipedia editors have to say such-and-such (eg "Into Darkness") is a subtitle. Wikipedia editors stating it without a reliable source is interpretation and original research. Combining a statement about an intention to use a subtitle with the current title is synthesis. He has to actually come out and say that "Into Darkness" was what he meant. (Going out on a limb and doing some interpretation, so take this with a grain of salt, it's been stated that one of the working titles was Star Trek: Vengeance, so that's probably what he meant.) DonQuixote (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC) And it hasn't been established that it isn't a subtitle - stating its a sentence is also original research,POV and interpretation. And our opinion of what constitutes synthesis clearly differs - I say previous statements on the matter are entirely in context and relevant and you don't. So another impasse for an objective party to decide on. Nsign (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC) You're the one claiming that it is a subtitle and that the previous interview has any connection whatsoever with the current title. The burden of proof is on you. The onus is on you to provide a reliable source verifying your claims. Otherwise, it's original research. DonQuixote (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC) (sigh)And sources have been provided by multiple sources - the officially released material available so far and Abrams own statement regarding his intention to use a subtitle. And interpreting the title as a sentence is also POV, original research and interpretation as you have no reliable source - anywhere - confirming that it is a sentence. Quite the opposite in fact. This is now utterly circular and neither of us will gain anything from repeating ourselves while sinking in a swamp of pedantry and subjective interpretation of Wikipedia policy. It is most likely than an objective outside party will need to rule on this. Nsign (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC) (sigh)None of those say that "into darkness" is a subtitle. Those are your interpretations, and thus original research. And all you're doing is shifting the burden. You're the one saying that the title should be read as a title and subtitle. Please provide a reliable source that says that it should be. DonQuixote (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC) He is not the "one". Multiple people have been trying to explain the obviousness of the subtitle status of "Into Darkness", and the undeniability of the possibility of the subtitle status. You are one of about two attempting to deny the obvious. Have you looked at the posters? Have you watched the trailer? Have you listened to commentators speaking the title? In all cases, they word be transcribed as title and subtitle (with a colon). It is straighforward, although there is no proof, as this is neither mathematics nor alcohol. Original research again?! The prohibition against building content on original research was created to keep out undereducated physics kooks postulating thier own version of gravity and relativity etc. WP:NOR is easily misunderstood at the lower levels, that we had to write in WP:CALC, to point out that arithmetic is not original research. In this case, with the posters, it is no more than "look and see" or "watch and see", "how would that be transcribed"? That is less WP:SYNTHESIS than arithmetic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC) If you have to say that it's "obvious", then it's original research. Even if it's obvious and true, that doesn't exclude it from having to be verifiable. Looking at posters and trailers is fine, but drawing any conclusions from them is interpretation and original research. From just above the edit box "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." So please find a reliable source that verifies all of the above. DonQuixote (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Drawing the conclusion that its a sentence is interpretation and original research. So please find a reliable source that verifies it is a sentence. Until you can then the debate is at an impasse. Nsign (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Still shifting the burden there. But I'll humour you...various sources have used STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Trek into Darkness. Wikipedia chooses the third one because of its WP:MOS. Now, please provide as source that says that the second one is the one-and-only valid one because it's supposed to be a subtitle. DonQuixote (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Please point out to me where I have said that the second one is the one-and-only valid one and I might consider humouring you. I say that the second option is preferable. As there is no 100% reliable source that the title is either a sentence or a heading and a subtitle, neither side of this debate can claim with certainty that they are correct and both rely to some degree on interpretation and POV. In which case Star Trek into Darkness should not be used because it allows for no other interpretation than a sentence - an interpretation for which there exists no verifiable sources or evidence, I should add - and neither for that matter should Star Trek:Into Darkness as it allows for no other interpretation than a heading and a subtitle. However Star Trek Into Darkness allows for the title to be interpreted as either one and is also consistent with all of the officially released material. This seems like a fair compromise which satisfies both sides of the debate and is consistent with both the spirit of Wikipedia and the guidelines set down in the MOS. And "Wikipedia" hasn't chosen. A certain group of users have chosen according to an MOS that allows for exactly this kind of exception based on reason and evidence. Nsign (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC) "Please point out to me where I have said that the second one is the one-and-only valid one"..."It is published in multiple sources that "Star Trek Into Darkness" has a capitalised the I."...which ignores the fact that STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS and Star Trek into Darkness has also been used. Without any interpretation or original research. Wikipedia's MOS is accurate enough. Also, "However Star Trek Into Darkness allows for the title to be interpreted as either one and is also consistent with all of the officially released material."...thanks for your analysis, but this falls under interpretation and original resarch. Finally, Wikipedia's MOS chose the representation of the title. A "certain group of users" have chosen to stick with what the MOS has chosen. Alternatively, some are arguing to change it. That's fine if you can show that it is an "exception based on reason and evidence". Please do so. DonQuixote (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Please see elsewhere on this page for multiple examples from multiple users. Also, no official source has used Star Trek into Darkness anywhere. And the MOS is only accurate when its accurate. And when its accurate is open to interpretation to debate. Nsign (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I havnt said that it is a subtitle and there isnt going to be a source that says that it is exempt from a Wikipedia guideline, because it is a Wikipedia guideline! So that is a stupid thing to as for. When you google it, Wikipedia is the ONLY publication that has into Darkness. Depending on the source, independent publications have a varying degree of reliability. MisterShiney ✉ 17:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia is not the only publication that has a lowercase "i", as shown above. And yes, independent publications have varying reliability. So putting all the varying publications together, the titles have been STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Trek into Darkness. So saying that the second choice is the one-and-only accurate choice is interpretation and original research (even with just the first two choices). Wikipedia's MOS chooses the third one. DonQuixote (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Comment: Flying rage monster. I'm now forced to change my opinion, specifically because I have physical evidence. What evidence is that, you ask? I contacted Paramount through official Star Trek UK site, and they confirmed that it is one sentence. Here's a link to that. Apologies, but I'm therefore going to have to change my mind. Although stylistically, it's shown as title/subtitle, it's meant to be one. drewmunn (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Well let's not get carried away - it adds some weight to the 'one sentence' theory but I'd still be inclined to take JJ Abrams' own statement on his intention to use a subtitle over someone moderating a Facebook page. Nsign (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC) I'm slightly inclined to agree, but I have to say that this is the only official stance we have. Abrams' statement was made a long while ago, and made in advance of any decision, rather than about the final decision. drewmunn (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC) I don't see how the time elapsed has any bearing on it - this was Abrams making a statement that he intended his film to have a subtitle. And Into Darkness is what it appears to be. He's made no statements since then saying he was going to make 'Trek' a connecting verb for the first time in 40 years. Nsign (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Intentions change all the time, indeed it is quite common for titles to undergo changes especially over a three year period). I agree that the Facebook statement isn't conclusive either way, but I believe it is sufficient to raise reasonable doubt over the claims that Into Darkness is a subtitle, and in such a case I think's better follow the MOS for the time being. If further evidence somes to light then the debate can always be revisited. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Well the consensus is still open so I'll go with the outcome of that. Nsign (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC) I don't see how that changes anything. Since when did facebook become a reliable source? How can anybody possibly know who is running that page??douts (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Having looked again at that page there is actually nothing to indicate that it is anything to do with Paramount or Bad Robot. Less than 2,000 likes for a Star Trek UK page? Looks like a fan-created page to me. Nsign (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC) From the Paramount UK website, it's linked directly as the official Facebook page. drewmunn (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC) I stand corrected - my apologies. Nsign (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Move to Star Trek: Into Darkness. The posters make it clear that there is a title and subtitle. The teaser (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/ ) at 0.56-0.58 seconds, makes it clear that it is a title and subtitle. The way is is spoken in the real world involves a pause after "trek" and emphasis at the start of "into", consistent with common reading of a subtitle and inconsistent with the reading of a single readthrough-sentence. Why did paramont not want to include a colon? That is their decision on style, not meaning. It probably has to do with colons not being suitable for url titles. We have precedent for inserting the colon neglected by paramont with Star Trek: The Next Generation. Star Trek into Darkness is unique to Wikipedia, confuses the reading, denies the possibility of the reading of the subtitle as the pseudotitle, and makes us look stupid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC) I disagree with adding a colon, as that would be complete synthesis on our behalf. No source that I've come across uses a colon; one uses a hyphen (BBFC), but no source, official or otherwise, I can find uses a colon. Styling-wise, a colon can be inserted super-easily when needed, so I doubt they'd leave it out is it was intended in any way. drewmunn (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Also disagree with adding a colon - it hasn't been used anywhere and the creators have specifically stated they would not use one. Nsign (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC) To play devil's advocate, the lowercase "i" is complete synthesis on our part as much as the colon. I have not seen it used anywhere other than Wikipedia. And hyphens and colons are practically interchangeable in these situations. Also, very relevantly, both Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Trek: Generations were never officially titled with colons either, yet we've added them here. There even seems to be discussion on those pages about whether or not the colons should really be there. It was just the filmmakers stylistic choice not to use them. Though I suppose with the Generations one it could actually be read as a single statement, about different generations of star trekkers. Not sure how the Nemesis one would work though. --DocNox (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Very interesting, thanks for drawing attention to that. It seems Wikipedia has form when it comes to making a judgement on the existence of subtitles based on reasoning and logic and making exceptions to the hallowed MOS when necessary. Who would have thought? Or perhaps it really was meant to be Star Trek Nemesis - the literal enemy of Star Trek. Or Rick Berman, to give him his proper name. Nsign (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Having read all others' views on this, I think inserting the colon is the best thing to do. This assumes that Abrams/paramount have decided to have no punctuation, as a matter of their style. This is not inconsistent with anything I have seen. There is plenty of evidence for the title/subtitle construction, and in formal English, and consistent with our MOS, a subtitle is delineated with a colon. If the colon is unacceptable, my second choice is for a capitalised "Into", as an exception to our MOS, because a lowercase "into" is so problematic. Third choice would be to go to "Star Trek 12" on the basis that the title is an artistic creation that cannot be simply rendered into plain text as required for a url title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC) I would disagree with adding a colon, despite the precedent set by the ST TNG page, as it has not been used in any official material and Abrams is on record as saying he would not use one. In my view simply capitalising "Into" would be enough and actually seems to me to a reasonable compromise for all parties. As there is no 100% reliable source that the title is either a sentence or a heading and a subtitle, neither side of this debate can claim with certainty that they are correct and both rely to some degree on interpretation and POV. In which case Star Trek into Darkness should not be used because it allows for no other interpretation than a sentence, and neither should Star Trek:Into Darkness as it allows for no other interpretation than a heading and a subtitle. However Star Trek Into Darkness allows for the title to be interpreted as either one and is also consistent with all the officially released material. This seems like a fair compromise which satisfies both sides of the debate and is consistent with both the spirit of Wikipedia and the guidelines set down in the MOS. Nsign (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Support. "Into Darkness" is clearly being used as a subtitle in all the marketing. In the trailer it even appears first on screen before "Star Trek" shows up. The filmmakers have never said it isn't a subtitle. All they've said is that there isn't a colon, and that could just as much come down to their specific MoS as them using a capital "Into" does. What if it's our punctuation style that differs and not our capitalization style? That said, that does not mean I actually support using a colon as that loses the second meaning of the title, which is that it is a single sentence and a literal trek into darkness. There's compelling evidence for both versions leading me to believe the filmmakers actually want it both ways, making this a unique case where the two versions of the title that acutally fit our MoS, Star Trek into Darkness and Star Trek: Into Darkness, are both wrong. Using one loses the second meaning. --DocNox (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Note for closing administrator. It doesn't matter if there are eleventy billion sources showing the "I" of "into" is capitalized. Since there is no colon in the title, the "into" is a preposition of four letters. Therefore it must be lowercase per MOS:CT. All claims that "into darkness" is somehow separate from "Star Trek" are original research. Moreover, saying that "into darkness" must be a subtitle because that's how Star Trek titles have appeared before is not a valid argument and more original research. There's simply no compelling reason why a longstanding naming convention of this project should be overturned simply because "it looks better". The closing administrator will note the numbers of people in favor of breaking the guideline are not significantly greater than the numbers of those who wish to follow it. Certainly there is no suggestion of a consensus to override MOS:CT. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Seriously? You are seriously disputing how Paramount have decided to name their film? There isnt a "looks better" argument. There is a growing consensus to have it changed and it is greater. Politicians are voted in on less. We are all using the same policies for our arguments and at the end of the day, we should fall back on what official sources are saying. We ourselves arnt providing a reliable source by having the wrong information portrayed. MisterShiney ✉ 17:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC) "Must be"? "No compelling reason"? All your own opinion. The assumption that a lack of a colon indicates a sentence is also original research. Normal grammatical rules often do not apply when it comes to film/TV/book/other media titles. The MOS is flexible and not set in stone and exceptions can be made according to logic, reason, precedent and available evidence. The arguments on this page present multiple reasons for why the exception to the MOS should be made, none of them are simply "because it looks better" and to suggest that that is what has been advanced is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. Whether the arguments are "compelling" or not will likely be for an objective party to decide. Nsign (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC) You and your group have invented a subtitle out of thin air, and we are supposed to ignore MOS:CT because of your invention? Sorry, but that is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Unless you can furnish us with a reliable source that specifically states "into darkness" is meant to be a subtitle, then it must instead be read plainly as "star trek into darkness" and fall under the auspices of MOS:CT. Let me repeat: there are zero "official sources" saying that "into darkness" is a subtitle. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Unless you can furnish us with a reliable source from the creators that specifically states "into darkness" is part of a sentence your own position remains POV and interpretation. To suggest its been invented "out of thin air" is again bordering on dishonest. The arguments have been presented clearly with reference to official sources and the creators statement of intent to use a subtitle. As per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense". The MOS allows for exceptions based on this and those arguments have been outlined clearly and it will most likely be for an objective party to rule on as the whole debate is now at a circular impasse, if there is such a thing. I repeat - the assumption that the title is a complete sentence is just that - an assumption based on POV and interpretation and for which pretty much the only argument presented for keeping it that way is that it is a "style choice", a choice that allows for exactly this kind of exemption, Whereas the idea that it is a subtitle has more weight based on available evidence from official sources, statement of intent from the creators and precedent set across 40 years of Star Trek history. You have your own opinion but I would respectfully suggest that you cease accusing those who differ of having invented things "out of thin air" or of asking for the change because they "think it looks better". It is misrepresentation and bordering on bad faith. Nsign (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, but that is all complete bullshit. It is not bad faith at all. There's no evidence to support the theory that "into darkness" is a subtitle. None. It is the absence of evidence to the contrary that forces us to treat "star trek into darkness" as a complete phrase, and thus MOS:CT applies. I strenuously object to your disgraceful attempt to label me as "dishonest", etc. At the end of the day, you have a group of editors who wish to follow Wikipedia guidelines, and a group (including you) who do not. That's all there is to it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC) None? The posters, with the new line, font change, huge font size change? The teaser-trailer, where the two parts are separated just as per the posters, but additionally separated in time (The large subtitle appearing before the small generic title)? The official foreign poster where the subtitle is the entire title? The TV interviews where there is an undeniable pause always between "trek" and "into" with emphasise in "in"? Or is it that you refuse to accept audi-visual sources, despite the subject to an audio-visual product? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC) That's all supposition and original research, and academic anyway. It doesn't matter how it is styled by the studio, because as long as there is no colon it is treated by Wikipedia as "Star Trek into Darkness". -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC) If it doesn't matter how the title is stylized by the studio then why are you taking into account the lack of a colon, which is also just stylization? --DocNox (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Scjessy, is it supposition AND original research to observe that every poster and trailer has a line feed and big font change after "Trek"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Children, enough. This article has endured too many battles over content. Get this done. RAP (talk) 14:44 16 December 2012 (UTC) There isnt any need for foul language just because you are getting frustrated with the "discussion" I myself have had several shouting matches at the computer screen and have written shall we say several choice words on the page. But that is against Talk Page etiquette and doesnt serve any purpose. So please keep it clean. We are all here citing the same polices and to say that a group of editors are ignoring policies is just not true. I myself have cited numerous policies throughout this discussion as have most of the group who are for the move. Where as those who are against the move are playing the broken record of saying MOS:CT applies in all cases, when Wikipedia themselves say that this is not true and common sense needs to be used in some cases. MisterShiney ✉ 16:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC) When you find myself responding to arguments that cite official sources and statements from creators of the work, using reason and argument, with the retort "complete bullshit", you may accuse me of not having an argument.The evidence for the "Into" case has been clearly outlined by myself and several others. There is in fact much less available evidence supporting the "it's a sentence" theory. "Strenuously object" all you like (but don't strain yourself too much). Your statements clearly accused others of presenting arguments on the sole basis of "because it looked better" and "out of thin air". This is demonstrably false if you take a cursory glance through the above contributions from several editors and thus, bordering on bad faith. So I say again - at best disingenuous, at worst dishonest. Nsign (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Just to be clear, there is nothing in the talk page guidelines that say coarse language like "bullshit" is unacceptable, so let's put that bullshit to rest right now. I stand by everything I have said, and my view is that Wikipedia's guidelines override the stylistic opinions of the "move" group. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Perhaps not, but it says a lot about your ability to discuss things in a temperate and polite fashion with other editors. Nsign (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Comment "Into" is being used as an action verb if this is a full single title, not as a prepositional verb. That is to say, even if the argument that "into" darkness is a mid-sentence word was supported by sources (it should be noted that contemporary sources list it as the start of the subtitle), it isn't an insignificant preposition. The fact that "the" is not used makes this a significant component of the title (title not being "Star Trek into the Darkness"). "Into" in this case is being used as an action verb (not a passive voice). This isn't Gone with the Wind or Dawn of the Dead. If this really is a sentence (which it is not) then "Into" is being used as an action, in and of itself. As an action, it is not a solely mid-sentence preposition that would be lowecased. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 21:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC) So what are you saying? (sorry, if I am being blind) MisterShiney ✉ 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC) "Into" is a preposition. Please look it up if you don't believe me. There is no "action verb" exception. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I believe what he's saying is that "into" could be seen as part of the phrasal verb "Trek Into" making "into" a particle and not a preposition, which means it should be capitalized as particles form part of the verb. Imagine for a second the title is "Star Run Into Darkness". "Run Into" is a phrasal verb meaning to meet something unexpectedly, in this case darkness. Whether or not that actually works for "Trek Into" I'm not sure, but it would neatly skirt around this whole issue. --DocNox (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Interesting - this indicates that those on the "its a sentence" side should accept that "into" is a particle and should be capitalized if they are contending that "Trek" forms the phrasal verb. If they are not contending that "Trek" is the phrasal verb then it is a subtitle and should either be capitalized or a colon added. I think capitalising would be the preferable choice as it allows for intepretation of both points of view. Nsign (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I'm of that disposition. I've done some research into phrasal verbs, and it very much seems that "Trek Into" would be considered a verb rather than a verb + preposition. In this case, I'd say capitalisation would show this. If you look at other Paramount films in their catalogue, (i.e. Transformers: Dark of the Moon), they use a MOS similar to Wikipedia's; they don't capitalise "of" or "the". However, they capitalise the "Into" in the Star Trek title, so there's obviously something beyond pure style going on there. drewmunn (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Interesting point, but as "Star Trek" is a noun, then the "trek" in question in the title is a noun and not a verb, i.e. "a trek" and not "to trek", therefore the "into" is not part of a phrasal verb. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Is this a serious point, or are you just dragging this out longer? Now you're saying Trek should be lowercase. Just bury this. This is now childish. RAP (talk) 14:32 17 December 2012 (UTC) We've still got 1 day before the deadline of this Request, so everyone's entitled to their opinions! Rob, we're used to Trek being part of "Star Trek", what if they're inverting this and being out of the ordinary? I know that makes the sentence dubiously sensical, but I'm inclined to believe that it's laid out that way. drewmunn (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) It's hardly childish. The point was raised, which on face value I thought was sensible, but I then had a serious think about the structure and came to the above conclusion which I have made in a civil and neutral way. And at no point do I say that "trek" should be lowercase. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC) If one accepts for the sake of argument that it is a sentence then 'Trek' becomes part of a phrasal verb. Unless one seriously wants to advance the theory that the meaning of the title is "Star Trek franchise goes Into Darkness" rather than "Space Journey Into Darkness". But please don't. Nsign (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Not necessarily. And as "Star Trek" is already a noun, then there is nothing for "into" left to be part of a verb with. Think of it as "A Walk in the Sun" rather than "Walk Into the Sun" --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Actually yes, necessarily. If (as I don't) one accepts its a sentence then logically Trek is a verb. If Star Trek is a noun then Into Darkness becomes the subtitle. I find it difficult to believe anyone would seriously infer that "Star Trek franchise into darkness" is the implied meaning of the title. One could even seek consensus on this but I suspect I know what the outcome would be and I doubt anyone wants to see that. And if the wording was 'A Star Trek into Darkness' you might have a point. But it isn't.Nsign (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC) No, you really don't understand my point. See the examples. It can't be part of a phrasal verb. That would mean that the whole "Star Trek" would become part of the same verb, i.e. "to Star Trek". Whereas as a noun, it is "a Star Trek", as in a journey, leaving "into" to be a preposition. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC) However, in having a look round for other examples, I'm not sure that the lowercase rendition of "into" in these are right. It's a similar problem to the one we have here. In some of those cases I'd be inclined to capitalise. But that's a whole other can of worms! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC) So how do you definitively know that it is "a Star Trek" and not "to Star Trek"? You don't. So why can't it be part of a phrasal verb? We're back in the pedantic swamp of POV and interpretation. Nsign (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Comment: wikipedia editors can't say whether "trek" is a noun or a verb. That's original research. We need an independent reliable source to make that analysis for us. (And I should have mentioned this before, same goes with "is a sentence" vs "is a subtitle.) DonQuixote (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC) An "independent reliable source to make that analysis for us"? Do you know, I'm amazed some people ever fart through fear of shitting themselves. Nsign (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC) We can make whatever analysis we want, however (from right above the edit box) "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." DonQuixote (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC) So you need someone from Paramount to draw you a picture as to whether "Trek" is a verb or a noun but you're happy to assume the title is a complete sentence with no official sources or verification to support it? Nsign (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC) As a primary school teacher, my 8 year olds would tell you that "Trek" as a word is a doing word (you are doing a trek across the mountains". When you add Star to it that is when it becomes a noun (a part of speech typically denoting a person, thing, place or idea). In this context, without the colon, its a phrase. They are on a "Star Trek Into Darkness". It's not original research to correctly identify the grammar. As another editor has pointed out, that Original Research is for people releasing their scientific findings etc. MisterShiney ✉ 18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry to point out your error, but if you are "doing a trek" then doing is the verb and trek is a noun (not a doing word/verb). On the other hand, if you were "trekking", then it is the verb. Therefore in all your examples above, "trek" is the noun. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC) :English is such a confusing language! And I have to flipping teach it! Is it any wonder why we have this problem! lol MisterShiney ✉ 22:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC) STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek into Darkness has been used by various sources. So, unless there's something to say otherwise, all three are acceptable. Wikipedia's MOS chooses the third one. DonQuixote (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Only it doesn't - you and certain others do. The hallowed MOS allows for exceptions and the reasons are clearly outlined elsewhere. And no official source from websites to posters to teasers - repeat, none - has used "into". Your verifiable "encyclopedic content" is nothing of the kind because you have no verification. Nsign (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)I suppose I am making the assumption that Star Trek is a noun because it is the name of the series, and thus makes more sense (to me) as a noun (i.e. it's about the journey, not journeying), but you're right, we can't be 100% sure of the intention. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC) A fair admission and the first concession I have seen from the other side that assumption and interpretation are involved. Much of this debate is based on what "makes sense". Nsign (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC) In this Twitter post Simon "Scotty" Pegg specifically says Trek is a verb in the title, not a noun. --DocNox (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Interesting but Pegg isn't one of the creators, he's just acting in it. Nsign (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC) And yet, it was Pegg's original tweet that prompted the discussion that led to the current page title. Look, the guideline is clear. "Into" is a preposition no matter how many fantastic ways people can butcher our language to pretend otherwise. The only appropriate title is "Star Trek into Darkness" per the guideline. Anything other that will have to come from a consensus to ignore Wikipedia's guideline based on what a bunch of people think it should be, rather than what it actually is. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC) No it wasnt. That would be the trailers and other released promotional material. At the end of the day, it is up to Wikipedia to report the facts. Not impart our own grammar/styles that totally change the meaning of the title altogether. Into Darkness can stand alone as a title (which it does in the trailer) into Darkness cannot. What it is is Into. Guidlines, are exactly that...GUIDES. If a precedent arises (such as this), then exceptions can be made. MisterShiney ✉ 22:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC) A tweet sparked a discussion, but we waited for more and better sources, soon reaching a clear consensus for "Star Trek Into Darkness" that was misimplemented with a lowercase i on the admins own back at the last minute. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I kicked off this latest debate and I wasn't aware of any tweets as I'm not on Twitter. And Star Trek into Darkness is not what it actually "is". That's interpretation and POV. Nsign (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC) No - the initial move request specifically addresses the capitalisation issue and consensus was found for that! There has been no clear consensus to capitalise "into" since. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC) NO no yes, No, the "initial" move request did not (perhaps you should date the early requests to distinguish). On the previous RM, there was clear consensus for the move, without capitalisation being addressed, and then points (the MOS specifically) on capitalisation were made late, by the closer, agreed by a few, opposed by none (it was quick). Since then there has been no clear consensus to capitalise "into", true. I would not call anything in the above a "consensus", let alone clear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I've just read through the archives. There were 3 move requests before this one, and none of them specifically addressed the into or Into issue. The capitalisation issue arose as a by-product of there being 2 move requests ongoing at the roughly the same time over whether to move from Untitled Star Trek Sequel to the current title in each of it's 2 forms. As far as I can there was never any clear consensus within either discussion on which version of the title it should be, so that part of your argument is null and void Rob.douts (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Umm, in the move nomination it reads "although per WP:CAPS the "Into" must be lowercase". --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC) You've missed my main point completely. Yes, in that one it was mentioned in the nomination. BUT that nomination was one of 2 that were ongoing at the same time, so logically you have to take the 2 together - and combining the 2 there was no consensus regarding capping the I. The majority of comments supporting or opposing don't even mention the issue of capping the I.douts (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Well put it this way - there's no clear consensus now. Nsign (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC) For either method. No consensus means we should follow the guideline and not change anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Assuming there's no consensus right now - but that's up to an independent person to determine.douts (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Comment: Not quite sure the significance of the heading below, but as another contributor has ignored it so will I, vote below. Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC) NoteAs an interesting adjunct I raised the phrasal verb question over on the Grammarly website (grammar q's & a's) and there were several responses but no clear consensus (sound familiar?) A couple of answers indicated that all titles are proper nouns, one indicated there's no right answer as it all depends on interpretation, and one said it should be treated as a title and a subtitle. http://answers.grammarly.com/questions/10287-star-trek-into-darkness-phrasal-verb/. Nsign (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC) It's not really relevant what they think. It's what we think here on Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Don't read it then. I said it was an interesting adjunct, nothing more. Nsign (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC) An hour before you asked the question at Grammarly, I asked a similar question; however, I deliberately hid the fact that it was a title to see what response I would get. The answer I received was interesting in that it showed how complicated the issue is. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC) A much more appropriate and neutral way of dealling with a technical issue without any unwanted input on specifics, an interesting answer and pretty much along the same lines as I was going. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Well, actually its best to be as specific as possible as context of use is equally as important as grammar, and a couple of the answers I got said that a title is just a title and is distinct from a normal sentence as titles don't have to play by "the rules". What's true for a sentence may not be true for a title. Whether they're right, I don't know. But I agree, the above cited answer is very interesting and indicates how complex this issue is. Nsign (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Support Star Trek: Into Darkness per SmokeyJoe. I don't care that the colon isn't on the poster; colons rarely appear on items themselves, but they're a very well established convention for separating titles and subtitles. It's clear from the placement of both phrases on the poster that this is a title and subtitle. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Agree. If it gets the I capitalised, i'll be happy with the colon. MisterShiney ✉ 22:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC) That mroe or less reflects my train of though. I think "into" needs to be capitalised. However, if "into" is capitalised, it means we've accepted that there is a colon, if transcribed correctly, which paramount may choose freely to not do, and putting the colon in suits our MOS, which is a good thing, and it happens that inserting a colon has precendent even in the Star Trek articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Not much point having policies and guidelines if we ignore them for no apparent reason. The rationale is based on the official name which is not a consideration under policy. The later arguments have little coherency, other than that some editors have a very strong personal preference for the capitalisation. Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC) It's nothing to do with personal preference. I've actually come round to the notion that as a sentence it works fine, it just takes getting used to. But the fact is we don't actually know its a sentence and there is no verifiable evidence or official material anywhere to suggest that's what it is, whereas there is a certain amount of evidence and logical reasoning to suggest that it may be a title and subtitle. The MOS allows for exceptions depending on whether or not those arguments are strong enough and an objective party will likely need to rule on that. Guidelines are guidelines, not immutable laws, and its a little disingenuous to suggest this change is being mooted for "no apparent reason". Nsign (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Agree totally that Guidelines are... not immutable laws, but here so are policies, under WP:IAR. I slightly resent the charge of being even a little disingenuous, I think that's a little over the top. Disagree that It's nothing to do with personal preference, having waded through all the above the logical starting point may be paraphrased we must capitalise "into" to reflect the official name and the arguments above then proceed to quite openly explore ways to justify this in terms of policy and guidelines. The function of the guidelines (and policies) is to help us to make these decisions, not to justify decisions already made, but that's a subtle distinction and it's very difficult to stay on this track. I accept the good faith in which the arguments above are offered but I think that failure to recognise that distinction and danger is the reason the discussion has become so long and convoluted. I'm also coming from a strong belief in Andrew's principle and looking for the best way forward. Andrewa (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC) I don't agree that the logical starting point is "we must capitalise to reflect the official name" but it is certainly part of it. The key sticking point as far as I'm concerned is that the currently rendered title makes an assumption of a sentence based on nothing more than POV and interpretation and the rendering allows for no other interpretation. That assumption is original research with no verifiable source and there is some evidence to suggest its incorrect - evidence not just based on "I don't want it to be a sentence", which is what some people have implied is being advocated. I think the arguments are demonstrably more than that, whether you agree or disagree. I appreciate your agreement re the guidelines - as that great diplomat Napoleon once said, "laws that are consistent in theory are often chaotic in practice". I'll also adopt Andrew's principle - there's always a way forward. Nsign (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose. The title's open to interpretations ("Star Trek: Into Darkness" or "Space Journey into Darkness", to paraphrase) and, given the lack of clarity from the producers, we might reasonably assume this is deliberate. In the absence of strong guidance to the contrary, the Wikipedia Manual of Style should take precedence. MisterVodka (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Comment Why is RoboCop acceptable as the title of every single RoboCop related article, yet Into Darkness is somehow deeply against policy or only a stylization as opposed to how the title is actually written? Why don't all of these people interested in protecting Wikipedia's style conventions retitle all of the RoboCop articles Robocop, and then add an additional sentence in parentheses saying "(stylized as RoboCop)" as is done with Thirteen Ghosts and Seven? In addition, if Star Trek Into Darkness is a stylization (it is not in my opinion) why doesn't someone edit the article with a parenthetical statement as described in the previous sentence? I have also not seen a good response as to why all of the Wikipedia style people have chosen to invoke Wikipedia's style guidelines, but professional writers and editors in other fields (e.g. journalism) have almost unanimously chosen to ignore their very clear style guidelines in this case? In this situation those guidelines are the same as Wikipedia's, and nearly all still write the title as Star Trek Into Darkness. Kilcoyne(talk) The MOS must be obeyed (repeat 100 times). In fact the Mayan apocalypse predicted for tomorrow will likely be caused by someone fiddling with the RoboCop article. Nsign (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC) It's covered at MOS:TM which describes the usage of as CamelCase a "judgement call". Agreed, a bit of anomaly though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC) But the guideline that you are talking about that supposedly supports a lower case "into" also says to use common sense when applying it, so it's a judgment call here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilcoyne (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Support There is clearly a subtitle, and the creator stated that there would be one. They are not "trekking into darkness", all these films are called "Star Trek" plus a subtitle to differentiate them from the series. Even the first film was called Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which automatically calls for a capitalized "The". All guidelines leave place for common place exceptions and this clearly one of those. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC) There's no evidence to suggest "into darkness" is a subtitle. As for your statement that they are not "trekking into darkness", consider the following from the official synopsis: "In Summer 2013, director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness." That's clearly an example of "trekking into darkness" right there. The fact that they capitalize the "I" of "into" in the synopsis has no significance with respect to MOS:CT, incidentally. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC) There's evidence to suggest "into darkness" is a subtitle. Posters. Trailer. Precedent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC) No, that is simply not true. The posters and the trailers stylize the words in all caps. Wikipedia ignores stylized text and presents it normally. Precedent is meaningless because it is well known the "supreme court" wanted to go in a different direction with the title. I repeat, there is NO EVIDENCE to support your view. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC) The CAPS use is not the evidence. It's the always-used line feed, the dramatic font change, the two seconds of the appearance of the large subtitle before the small title, the foreign poster that has only the subtitle, the Russian poster where a synonym of "into darkness" is used that cannot make the same sentence, the precedent of so many franchise films styled "<franchise>: <subtitle>" that do not use a colon in the audio-visual work itself. Reject the significance of this evidence, some may, but to deny its existence is absurd. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC) "Always-used line feed" is also something you made up that is not supported by the facts. There are numerous print examples, including in the official synopsis, where the title is written without a line feed. And again, the precedent is totally and utterly irrelevant. The first film broke precedent with being simply titled "Star Trek". Everything the "support" group points to relates to style, not substance. There is no "evidence" of anything. And in the absence of evidence, we go with the guideline and leave the title of this article unchanged. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC) "Always-used line feed" [in the Star Trek Into Darkness posters, trailer] is there plain to see. Do you want links and the time in the trailer repeated? I'm pretty sure the links are reliable, and I certainly didn't make them up. Print examples mean rendering a visual creation into text, which is exactly the question here. Do you consider title/subtitle to be just "style" without grammatical and underlying meaning? The first film is titled, by us, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", in italics. And I don't recall any colons in the visual creative product. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC) To back up Joe's point, here[1] is the poster for the first film. Here[2] is the poster for "Into Darkness". Note the same different change in font size and same usage of different lines for title and subtitle. If it's done for one, it has to be done for t'other. douts (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Quite right. Nsign (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC) You misunderstood my use of quotation marks around "first". I was referring to the "first" Star Trek movie of the rebooted franchise - the 2009 film. It is a movie that set many new precedences, including not having a subtitle. From TMP to Nemesis, Star Trek films all had a colon in the title in print form. For the 2009 film and the new film, this old convention has clearly been abandoned (with the producers going out of their way to say no to the colon). So with the removal of the colon, and the use of the full title as part of a sentence in the official synopsis, we can see that "Star Trek into darkness" is meant to be a phrase. And even if you don't see that, the absence of anything else to guide us (that isn't original research about line feeds or the way it is styled on the screen) makes it fall under the auspices of MOS:CT. Case closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC) You are misusing "original research" as a buzzword. Interpreting a line feed and font change as a subtitle marker is way below the threshold described at WP:NOR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Gosh, you're right, how stupid we've all been. Case closed indeed. Except the convention hasn't "clearly been abandoned" at all - POV, original research and interpretation. As is everything you cite in the above post. You also ignore the fact that at the same time the producers said they wouldn't use a colon they specifically stated they would use a subtitle. Case open. Anyway let's give it a rest now - as Erik below has said there is no rock left unturned now and all we're doing is going round in circles. Have some eggnog. Nsign (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC) No, that is simply not true. The press releases and synopsis capitalise the I and precedent is not meaningless in this case - to establish context it is logical to look at the Star Trek franchise. It's also not just a case of stylizing all in caps either - Into Darkness is rendered in different fonts and letter sizes and in the case of the trailers, appears on a different screen prior to the appearance of the words Star Trek, strongly indicating it is a seperate phrase (consider - any film with a sentence as a title puts it on the one screen. It would be like He's Just Not That Into You splitting it across 2 screens). There is also a statement from the creator that he would use a subtitle for the sequel (some editors contend this is inadmissable evidence, I disagree). As has also been indicated elsewhere, Star Trek Nemesis and Star Trek Generations contain no official punctuation yet Wikipedia has chosen to insert colons to distinguish the subtitles (and I'm not even arguing for a colon, just the capitalisation of "into"). The MOS lets you do these things if they make sense. What there indisputably is not is NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE (if we're going to shout) that Star Trek into Darkness is a sentence and only a sentence, which is the only interpretation we currently have and which has led to this bugger's muddle. Nsign (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Comment: I would like to ask the editors who have contributed thousands of words to this discussion to suspend their rhetoric here. We keep going around the same block, and it has piled up enough grief for the closing admin. I'm pretty sure no rock has been left unturned by now. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Agreed. This conversation has been going round and round in circles now for weeks. Each user re telling the same thing in a different way. MisterShiney ✉ 22:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC) I suspect some of us will be on our deathbeds with our families gathered round and our last words will be "...but there's this guideline...agghhhh...." Nsign (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose. I have just read through this amazing discussion. I'm a Star Trek fan so I understand how passionately people can be about the subject. But this circular debate is just insane. You people need to take a break and edit elsewhere for a bit! All that being said, I oppose the move because it seems that the people saying the title is a complete phrase make sense to me. "Into" is obviously being used as a preposition here, so people saying it comes under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Composition titles are right. - 76.124.173.41 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC) But in the Wikipedia article itself J.J. Abrahms says it's a subtitle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilcoyne (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Comment: Wanted to point out this recent interview with Abrams where he refers to the film just as "Into Darkness", clearly using it as a subtitle. --DocNox (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) No, not really. I've heard many people (including Abrams) refer to "The Empire Strikes Back" as simply "Empire", for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC) But The Empire Strikes Back can still be used as a subtitle (in fact it is). You will find that among fans when they discuss the films of Star Wars they will use "Jedi" "Empire" "New Hope" etc to refer to the films they are talking about. I would think that in an official interview that Abrams would not paraphrase this film/work like this and will get it out there as much as he can using its official title. But I suppose you would say this is my "personal interpretation" blah blah blah. But I say, thats BS because it's standard practice for any producer/director/writer when giving interviews about their works to mention the title as much as they can. MisterShiney ✉ 10:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC) You are correct. That is indeed all your personal interpretation. You really have absolutely no idea. You are just guessing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC) As are you. Don't think it has escaped our notice that this whole thing could of been avoided if YOU (You were the person who put in the original move notice) had put in the correct title and then discussed imposing an obsolete MOS in this instance rather than being so determined to prove you are right by citing the same source again and again when you have been proved wrong by so many editors, official sources and precedents of the franchise. Editors who are determined to stick to the letter of Guidelines have no place editing Wikipedia if they themselves violate one of it's pillars:Wikipedia does not have firm rules! MisterShiney ✉ 19:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC) I think after 7 years and almost 20,000 edits, I have a pretty good idea of how to edit Wikipedia. I did use the correct title and it conforms to a Wikipedia guideline that is not "obselete". Everything was done properly. "Precedents" are meaningless. Official sources have no bearing on Wikipedia guidelines. There's no clear consensus to change the title of this article so that it breaks MOS:CT, so it will be left as it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC) I don't care how many edits you have. As an experienced editor you should know that there are exceptions to every rule and that Pillar 5 clearly applies as we are the ONLY source putting a lower case on it, regardless of our MOS (I am sure that other sources, Includkng Paramount, have their own MOS to follow). Precedents are not meaningless, otherwise why would be they used in a court of law? Precedents are there to justify a change/outcome. That Guidline (and I do stress guideline) has its place, but it is in this instance not here. You cannot determine if a precident has been reached because you are involved in the discussion. (At the momennt it would seem that there is a split with a slightly larger majority leaning for the capitalisation, or in the very least a colon). Official sources should have a bearing on guidelines, especially if a stink as big as this one has been kicked up. They should be what we lean back on when discussiong something like this. I eagarly await an independent admin to weigh in and provide mediation. MisterShiney ✉ 00:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC) You know this argument was posted to Reddit. internet thinks we are losers for fighting over spelling. RAP (talk)21:42 24 December 2012 (UTC) Comment I know it's not a vote. But it should be noted that currently it's 14 editors for the move, all citing multiple sources within Wikipedia (Including policies and guildlines, including the one being used by the opposition) and 11 against who all seem to be citing the same policy (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Composition titles). MisterShiney ✉ 01:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC) You are ignoring reality. It is not in dispute that the studio and other sources present the title as "Star Trek Into Darkness" - we all agree on that. The issue here is that Wikipedia has always (with a few minor exceptions) ignored such styling and followed guidelines that everyone has agreed on. It is a bit like how the BBC insists on presenting "NASA" as "Nasa" (despite presenting its own corporation as "BBC"). It's because just like Wikipedia, the BBC has style guidelines they follow that (sometimes) seem unusual. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC) No I'm not. Editors seem to be ignoring that Grammar changes EVERYTHING about about a title/sentence. By incorrectly portraying the title as it has been officially released we are changing the entire meaning of the title of the film. In a. Topic that has sparked just huge debate that goes against MOS, we should fall back on what official sources say. NASA has always been presented on BBC website/in bulletins as NASA (pronounced as one world, like NASA Themselves and other news broadcasters around the world) so that is obsolete and has no place in this discussion as it relates to acronyms, which is an entirely different thing altogether. MisterShiney ✉ 16:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC) You are incorrect (about both things). "Into darkness" has been used as part of a sentence in the official synopsis, so the meaning is clear and the lowercase "into" is appropriate. And my point about different organizations having their own style guidelines is totally relevant, since it shows an example of where GUIDELINES override STYLE. The BBC writes "NASA" as "Nasa". It has always done so. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Where is the official synopsis? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC) There are a million sources, but here's the most obvious one. The key sentence to this discussion is: "In Summer 2013, director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness." Note how although the style is still to capitalize the "I" of "into", Paramount is still using the title in a complete sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Two versions. Both say "In Summer 2013, director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness." I see where you are coming from, but I still prefer the audio/visual evidence over the press release. I understand if you do not. I think Abrams is making fun of the silly title, or he is trying to have it both ways, as someelse previously said. The sentence suggests an implied verbose version of the title as "A Film that takes the Franchise Star Trek into Darnkness". I much prefer my theory that there is a Title & Subtitle, and the colon is undesired on graphical images and due to url reasons, and is consistent with the first ten movies that had no colon on their posters and an inserted colon in the Wikipedia articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Trekmovieweb and Treknews.com both have reproductions of the synopsis as it was sent directly to them - here's one link: http://www.treknews.net/2012/12/20/updated-star-trek-into-darkness-synopsis/. I unfortunately don't have one myself as Paramount for some reason didn't see fit to send me it. I am however prepared to assume that since multiple websites have reproduced the same synopsis, they aren't acting in collusion with something they've made up and do in fact possess the official one. Also, the fact that the press release uses it is a sentence is not conclusive. The latest issue of Empire magazine has interviews with Abrams and various cast members where they repeatedly call it Into Darkness, implying a subtitle. The meaning is far from clear at this point. Nsign (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC) No, it doesn't imply a subtitle. It implies laziness. Nobody wants to keep saying "Star Trek into Darkness" in an interview, so they abbreviate it to just "Into Darkness" - exactly like people shorthand "The Empire Strikes Back" to just "Empire". For an extreme example, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" was shorthanded to "The Origin of Species". At this point, I think serious consideration should be given to changing MOS:CT. I do not support going against the guideline, but I do see that the guideline is pretty retarded. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Well clearly it does imply a subtitle or else we wouldn't be having this discussion. As for changing MOS:CT, I think you're right, it should be changed. Not sure if I'd personally want to get involved in opening that can of worms though. Nsign (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Is this going to be resolved any time soon? I mean, come on, this has been an embarrassing argument for the past month. I'm remaining neutral here, whatever you select, whatever. Get 'er done. RAP (talk) 17:04 27 December 2012 (UTC) Well normally an uninvolved administrator will come in and determine whether or not the page should be moved; however, without a clear consensus it will likely be left as it is. Dispite all the bickering, this has actually been a useful discussion because it has shown that MOS:CT is probably flawed and needs attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Support either "Star Trek Into Darkness" or "Star Trek: Into Darkness". Reliable sources and the official website show "Into" capitalized. Ωphois 05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC) How do you reconcile your support with MOS:CT, and what sources can you provide that support the use of a colon? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Scjessey, please stop being argumentative. Users do not have to provide detailed explanations for their support/oppose arguments. Especially when so many reasons have been provided above! MisterShiney ✉ 15:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks, MisterShiney. Although, to show my reasoning, the first line of the MoS page states, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Ωphois 18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Support—it’s (perhaps intentionally) ambiguous whether “Into Darkness” is a subtitle, but I universally hear it spoken as such, so it’s probably best for the article title to allow for the possibility until it’s confirmed either way. It is possible that they named it as “TITLE SUBTITLE” without a separator (and the first word of titles or subtitles is always capitalized). To insist that it’s not a subtitle is WP:OR, just as much as inserting a colon would be. By the way, is this discussion really still open? I can’t believe it hasn’t been closed yet. —Frungi (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Support— At least four citations in the "Title" section itself spell it with a capital I, and I've just seen that the official database caps the I and spells it Star Trek Into Darkness. See http://www.startrek.com/page/star-trek-into-darkness. Star Trek Into Darkness When the crew of the Enterprise is ... for the only family Kirk has left: his crew. Visit the official Star Trek Into Darkness movie website. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Neutral observation: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," said the Manual of Style. If it is decided that "Into Darkness" is not a subtitle, then "into" will need to rendered in lowercase, as per the MoS. Cheers! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, agreed that that is the crux. Is "Into Darkness" is a subtitle? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC) There's something else to consider: We're an encyclopedia. How encyclopedic are we if we list a spelling that no major newspaper or magazine nor the filmmakers themselves use? --Tenebrae (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Well yes. Why do some Wikipedians insist to such an extreme on following a MOS guideline? Newspapers have their own MOSs, and they allow for this exception without apoplexy. A reason for exception in this case is ambiguity of meaning impacted by punctuation/capitalization. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Concur. No guideline can ever cover every exigency became the human mind can come up with infinite variations on things. Mostly people don't, so guidelines work 99% of the time. But every now and then someone comes up with some new twist that the guidelines don't concretely address, and this is one of those times. That said, here's a possible compromise solution, based on Se7en, Thir13en Ghosts and similar films: "Star Trek into Darkness (stylized as Star Trek Into Darkness)". --Tenebrae (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I would support that approach, particularly because I do not believe "into darkness" is a subtitle (otherwise it would've been given a colon). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC) But saying it's stylised is still personal opinion and original research. Especially when it is not an obvious stylisation like those examples. MisterShiney ✉ 19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Sigh. This discussion has boldly gone into darkness. I cannae take anymore, Cap'n. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC) No, no! I think you've got them on the run! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I hope that was sarcasm Erik...? At the end of the day, I think we are at an impasse that wont be solved will an impartial admin comes in and settles it. MisterShiney ✉ 19:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) There's no such thing as an "impartial administrator" when talking about Star Trek. Any Wikipedian who is not also a Trek fan is unworthy. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC) It's hard to tell without vocal tone or facial expression, but I'd have to assume you're being jocular. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC) No, Scjessey is quite right. Any admin not from deepest, darkest Africa who is non-appreciative of the subject has an unacceptable anti-Trek POV. And further, any other admin must belong to the correct side of the other endless Trek debate or is similar ineligible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Also, it's not POV or subjective to call the cap-I title stylized. In fact, it follows the definition of the term: Without a colon or a lowercase-I, which is standard spelling and punctuation, then it's stylized spelling and punctuation. That part really isn't an issue. --21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Well it is, because we are going against what it officially has been called/referred to as in all of its promotional material and we are putting our on style on it because "we know best". MisterShiney ✉ 21:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC) No, no, just the opposite. Wiki style may be to render it as standard punctuation/grammar ("Star Trek into Darkness / Star Trek: Into Darkness"). But the title as the filmmakers render it is no standard punctuation/grammar (Star Trek Into Darkness). Anything that's not standard is stylized, by definition. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I don't agree at all that it would necessarily have a colon if it was meant to be a subtitle. Just look at the StarTrek.com site linked earlier that not only doesn't use a colon with Into Darkness, but doesn't use one for any of the TNG films either. It's stylization as much as anything else. I was also trying to think of another film this might have happened to and all I could come up with was Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. But luckily "beyond" beats the silly 5-letter rule or else I'm sure there'd be people trying to lowercase it too. --DocNox (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) There's plenty of movies where this very thing happens. Here's one that even sounds similar: Journey into Fear. Also Journey into Darkness, Jump into Hell, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I can see your point, but I don't agree. Those films were released without online media hype/sources that we have today. It should be noted though, when googling those film titles, their respective Wikipedia articles are the only pages that lower case them. Surely as an encyclopedia we should using the real world usage? MisterShiney ✉ 22:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I meant specifically where it could be interpreted as both a subtitle and a sentence. Not sure how any of your examples work as a subtitle. Mad Mad Beyond Thunderdome does, and is often written as Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome and even Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome. --DocNox (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC) But being a title it doesn't follow the standard punctuation/grammar. Could Star Trek be considered a trademark? In which case it would fall under MOS:TM in which it would be capitalised. Dont forget guys that one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia is that real world usage should be reflected when possible. Hence why I am pro capitalisation. If it was being used as a lower case then I would be right there with you guys, but it isn't. MisterShiney ✉ 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Hum, "Star Trek" is a trademark of CBS studios. It was previously trademarked by Paramount Studios. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Have to agree. If the likes of The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly and the official Star Trek site itself use the cap-I — which I agree is grammatically maddening — then I'm not sure what purpose we're serving by being contrary to WP:COMMONNAME usage. That said, perhaps the compromise suggestion I offered may be something we could all meet halfway on. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC) That way lies madness. Why do we have a MOS, if not to prevent us from having to check sources every time we want to know how to capitalize something? Powers T 02:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Nonsense. Per MOS:TM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Emphasis on "Standard" this isn't a standard scenario. Otherwise there would be a clearer policy for it. Dont forget the rest of that line "as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one" which would imply that if it is already in use in titles, then use it. Also the first general is "Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names" this is a name, therefore is capitalised. MisterShiney ✉ 09:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Again, nonsense. This is a completely standard scenario. MOS:TM is telling us to follow the usual style guideline for proper names and ignore the "official" capitalisation. We have a usual style guideline at MOS:CT, so we wouldn't be making one up. The guideline is completely clear, it's just that you've completely misinterpreted it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC) First off, no editor's contribution are nonsense and I would ask you to keep that opinion to yourself. You are basically implying your view is better than other peoples. It is obvious that common sense needs to be used and real world usage applies in this scenario. Each policy is open to interpretation in every different scenario which is why we have the Not Law and WP:COMMONNAME. English is such a complex language, words arnt always used for the same thing all the time. Their interpretations are subject to change. MisterShiney ✉ 10:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC) No, I am not implying my view is better than other people's. All I am doing is pointing out that you have misinterpreted the guideline at MOS:TM, for the benefit of other editors, as you are claiming that if we follow MOS:TM we should capitalise. This is not the case. The guideline is clear, it states that we shouldn't capitalise. It's whether we choose to ignore that guideline or not that is the issue here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Yes you are. You say Po-tay-toe. I say Po-tah-toe. This conversation is going round and round in circles. I would be having fun if I wasnt so dizzy. MisterShiney ✉ 10:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I'd point to the level of debate and discussion that this subject has prompted over the last month as an indication of how this is emphatically not a "completely standard scenario". If it was it would have been easier and faster to resolve. If its a sentence, should Wikipedia make an exception to the guideline? Probably yes, because we're one of very few resources using the lower case "into" and as has been pointed out, this is an encyclopedia and should aim to reflect real world usage. However I'd accept a no verdict without argument if there was verifiable proof that it is a sentence. If its a subtitle that hasn't been colonised should it be capitalised? Of course. Or even add a colon as Wikipedia has already done that with Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Trek: Generations, despite the fact that we have no verifiable proof that they are actually subtitled. Personally I'm against the colon as we'd be assuming too much. Personally I think simply capitalising "Into" is enough as it allows for both interpretations - a sentence or a subtitle - and it reflects the real-world situation: none of us are 100% sure either way. Then again I'm getting to the point where I can't really be buggered with the whole thing given how circular its become and wish that someone objective could just bang a gavel on this and put us out of our misery. Nsign (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC) There is verifiable proof that it is a sentence. It is used as such in the official synopsis issued by Paramount Pictures. Even though the stylize the text with capital letters (presumably they must do this for trademark reasons), they still use it in a sentence. But even if this were not the case, the guideline applies to all composition titles anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC) No, that's just an example of a studio employing a title in a dramatic and "clever" fashion in the wording of their publicity. It isn't proof that Into Darkness isn't a subtitle or that Star Trek isn't being used as a heading and trademark. And I doubt it will persuade anyone on this side of the argument that "Into" should remain uncapitalised. Nsign (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I disagree. Who are you to say what the studio intended to do by including the title as part of a sentence? I'd argue it specifically shows the title is meant to be read as a sentence, with "into darkness" having a particular emotional meaning that relates to what happens in the movie. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC) See, this is what I mean, it's just wearily circular now. I can respond with points about Abrams stating he'd use a subtitle, the differences in fonts and the title appearing seperately in the trailers, precedent, the capitalisation in various sources et al ad infinitum. We won't get any further along because its all been covered already and both sides have an argument. Didn't Heath Ledger say something like this is what happens when a strong force meets a solid object? Same thing here. Someone, please - end it somehow. Nsign (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Absolutely essential reading for anyone who has been involved in this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Love it. This page should be added to this article too: http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/web/10-of-wikipedias-wackiest-arguments-675694. Nsign (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Scjessey: I argue that it does not make grammatical sense to “star trek into darkness”, as, to my knowledge, “star trek” has never been used as a verb by anyone. Assuming and enforcing that it’s a phrase (not a sentence) is just as dangerous and Wrong as assuming and enforcing that it’s a title-subtitle, until and unless we get confirmation either way. And no, the lack of punctuation does not confirm that it’s not a subtitle, or else we would not have every consulted source capitalizing “into”. —Frungi (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I came here with half a mind to perform a non-admin closure, but that's probably not a good idea. For the record, I Support the move (contra MoS) because I've found the arguments in favor sufficiently convincing. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Support Per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. We always tell the new people that it's impossible to screw anything up on Wikipedia since its all saved anyway and thus can be reverted, so why don't we take our own advise and just go for it. Also, from where I sit, this is a clear cut case of the rules preventing us from making a simple change that as people have pointed out above seems to be supported by official material. As I said above, if it turns out to be a little "i" instead of a big "I" then it's a small matter for an admin to move the page back. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. Post-closing discussion Not to reopen the discussion, but how on earth can with more editors supporting the move not be a consensus? I am aware that polling is not a substitute for discussion., but we have extensively discussed the topic at hand, with people even commenting that the argument for moving were sufficiently convincing (some editors even switched their views) so 1) Why wasn't an independent Admin involved in coming down on either side explaining their reasoning? and 2) What happened to "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly? and did the closing admin really do that?" MisterShiney ✉ 09:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC) You can always leave him a message on his talk page asking for a more in-depth review of the arguments (although he is semi-retired), and you could start a move review after that. drewmunn (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah I have done that. Saying that, another one of his closures was disputed on similar grounds. For the record, I would be saying the same thing no matter what side I was on. MisterShiney ✉ 10:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC) This is a classic "no consensus" as this will never resolve this at this time. I think the closing admin clearly made the right decision. The fact that there were a few more support !votes is irrelevant, and I'm positive that this experienced admin took the quality of the arguments (and their relation to the relevant style guidelines) into account. It's best to keep this closed for now, otherwise we'll be arguing for months and months. Perhaps, once the film is released, there will be some more developments regarding the title. We can re-address at a later point if necessary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC) MisterShiney makes a fair point in that the only reason given by the admin is 'no consensus after 29 days'. I would have thought given the scope and length of the arguments from both sides that it would at least merit a little more comment from the person making the end decision. Nsign (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I think it is clear the closing admin simply followed policy. When no clear consensus has been reached in a discussion about article titles (as is clearly the case here, particularly since it goes against a longstanding Wikipedia guideline), the title remains unchanged if it is stable or changed to the one used after emerging from stub status (which doesn't apply here). The title has been stable since September last year. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I agree with both MisterShiney and Nsign in that I would have liked a little more, maybe even a suggestion as to how to progress in the future (taking into account the strong opinions on both sides, an admin's suggestions on progression would be helpful). As I'm currently somewhat side-less on the matter, I don't really care how long it takes to get resolved, so I say we wait some more before opening another discussion. I don't think the release of the film itself will clear it up, but its listings in the MPAA and the BBFC should become more detailed, and hopefully more helpful. An official statement from the production company would be great, but I think they're intentionally vague (production has stalled whilst they sit and laugh at our discomfort; we're their main source of entertainment I'm sure. In fact, we should get part of the bonus section on the DVD dedicated to charting this ongoing debate). drewmunn (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I'm certain the producers of the film deliberately came up with this title to irritate Wikipedians. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Yes. "No consensus" and no move was the right call. In five and a bit months we should have the plot. It may help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Perhaps, but even so, a little more information from the admin who looked at it would be much appreciated. Especially when if you look on his talk page, a discussion of a similar length of time was reopened by him when the editor contested it because (like ours) the discussion didnt consist only of opinions and he didnt explain how he thought the different opinions outweighed supporting policies out weighed each other. Because as per Wikipedia:RMCI the content of arguments is supposed to matter and by the Admin by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. Just asking for a little clarification which IS needed. MisterShiney ✉ 13:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think the closing admin needs to explain himself. It's hardly contentious that there was no consensus. We were clearly never going to reach an agreement! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Agreed. It is a waste of time. Per WP:RMCI, the move would not have been made anyway because it violated one of Wikipedia's naming guidelines (MOS:CT). That, plus the stability of the current title (stable since September) and the clear lack of consensus made this a routine close. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Given the length of this discussion they most certainly should! Especially when more users wanted the change. So why was their argument less substantial than those against? It's a simple request and a reasonable one. It was only stable because someone put in the wrong title when they named it! Lets face it, if it had been closed and the move made, you would want to know why the Admin agreed with those wanting the change. MisterShiney ✉ 14:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Per WP:RMCI#Determining consensus: "any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2013 So basically what you are saying is that the last month of discussion was a complete waste of time and we shouldnt have been discussing it in the first place? MisterShiney ✉ 14:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC) A number of us have been trying to tell you exactly that. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, in all but the most extreme circumstances, trump any local consensus to violate them. And there's no way it could be argued there was anything approaching a consensus to move in the first place, unless the arguer had no idea what "consensus" actually meant. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Glad to see the month has been productive for us all then. MisterShiney ✉ I am so going to laugh if it comes up when it gets reviewed for GA and we get told off that it isn't reflective of the real world usage etc etc. MisterShiney ✉ 14:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I think we should all have a barnstar each for not going mad. Meanwhile, the conversation wasn't vain, because according to Wikipedia, consensus can change. drewmunn (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Consensus can indeed change; however, that would have to be at the community level. You need to get a consensus to change MOS:CT before you can think about changing anything here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Not necessarily, there is scope for existence outside strict guidelines, and if an admin felt we had reached consensus despite MOS, we would be at Star Trek Into Darkness right now. drewmunn (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I've gotta agree with MisterShiney on this point - some clarification/explanation from the closing admin would have been useful, particularly when this comes up again (which i have no doubt it will do at some point). douts (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Come on, folks; there's a big difference between "no consensus to move" and "consensus to not move". The closer found the former, not the latter, and it's baffling that anyone could argue otherwise. Do you really see a consensus anywhere in the above discussion? Powers T 14:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC) No, that's the point. We didn't find consensus, but we could have liked a little more to explain what processes we should go through in the future when this same debate happens next month. And the month after that. This same discussion, almost word for word, will keep happening, and we just wanted an admin to say "leave it for 2 months" or something so we could keep unnecessary repeats of this to a minimum, or explain a procedure that could help us reach consensus. drewmunn (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC) We don't need an admin to say that. Any subsequent move discussion that takes place in the next few months, absent new evidence in favor, is likely to be closed quickly on procedural grounds. We can even agree, as editors, that we won't entertain new move discussions for a certain period of time. Powers T 15:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC) The wikipedia idea of Consensus in itself is flawed (and incorrect) at the end of the day...we will never get EVERYONE (which is the wiki definition) to agree to the same thing. Consensus is the general/majority agreement, which to me (call me biased) would say the consensus here was to move. Regardless of being involved, that is how I would of called it. MisterShiney ✉ 15:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC) A consensus is when most people agree (which is certainly not the case here) and the few who don't are obviously outliers. Anyway, this has become something of a meta-discussion unsuitable for this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC) But then how do you define most? Most = More than right? More users were for the move than against. So logically most people agree the move was appropriate. I'm just saying. MisterShiney ✉ 15:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Then read it again. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Powers T 15:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) In a consensus discussion concerning a page move, "most" means "almost everyone". But even if 99/100 agreed to the move, it would probably still be rejected if it was violating MOS:CT. The whole move argument has been predicated on the existence of an implied colon between "Star Trek" and "into Darkness", and quite a number of editors supporting the move based their decisions on that, rather than a sound understanding of Wikipedia's naming conventions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC) For the record, it's not true that "The whole move argument has been predicated on the existence of an 'implied colon' between 'Star Trek' and 'into Darkness'." Some of us were arguing this, which I quote from 06:32, 4 January 2013 and has nothing to do with colons and everything to do with an inflexibility that our own guidelines don't encourage: " We're an encyclopedia. How encyclopedic are we if we list a spelling that no major newspaper or magazine nor the filmmakers themselves use?" --Tenebrae (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC) The spelling is the same, it's merely the case styling that is different. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC) No, the spelling is different. Having Catholic tastes and having catholic tastes are two different things. Words are spelled differently if they are capitalized or not. A grammar teacher considers the following as incorrect spelling: "The dog Jumped on the couch." We can discuss which is the right form to use, but there isn't a question whatsoever that we're spelling the title differently from every reputable publication and the filmmakers themselves. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC) No, that is not spelling. It is styling. It changes the way it looks but does not change the meaning. That is why its status is determined by a "manual of style" and not a "manual of spelling". And again, we can argue "reputable publications" until we are blue in the face but it won't change anything because Wikipedia adopted a site-wide style for composition titles. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I hadn't wanted to bring this up before, but I'm a professional journalist and editor. In the sentence "The dog Jumped on the couch," the word "jumped" is misspelled though the meaning doesn't change between uppercase and lowercase. That's not a matter of style since the correct, lowercase spelling is the same everywhere. No copy editor would ever let "The dog Jumped on the couch" go through, because it contains a misspelling. I make my living at this, so please show good faith that I know basic grammar, punctuation, syntax, spelling and the definition of words. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Most university writing guides include a list of abbreviations to use in order to indicate various sorts of writing errors. Spelling mistakes are commonly indicated by "sp". Errors of capitalization are commonly indicated by "cap". They are considered different sorts of orthographic errors. See Orthography, which says that orthography "includes rules of spelling; other elements of written language that may also be considered to be part of orthography include hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation." So spelling is one element of orthography and capitalization a different one. The Oxford dictionary defines "spell" as "write or name the letters that form (a word) in correct sequence." The letter "i" and the letter "I" are the same letter (there are 26 letters in the alphabet, not 52), so the difference is not a spelling difference. 99.192.89.41 (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Most = "almost all". Consensus = "A process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members". --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Oh, and Wikipedia's idea of WP:CONSENSUS is WP:POLICY and not "flawed and incorrect". --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Er, Wikipedia isn't infallible Rob. Policies can be flawed and editors are at liberty to point that out if they like. Now I agree that consensus was never going to be reached on this and I'm happy to let the matter of the title rest for now but MisterShiney does have a point here. Policy states that "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions". I'm prepared to assume that the admin who ruled did do this. It would only have been more helpful if they had taken a little more time to outline their thinking to illustrate that it was done. Its not a big ask and I've seen it done frequently on Wikipedia as a matter of course. The simple sentence "no consensus reached after 29 days" on the heels of such a lengthy debate was bound to get on people's tits. Nsign (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC) To be fair on the closing admin, it was always going to be nightmare closing this one. He probably tried to keep the language neutral and avoid getting involved in order to avoid further argument and this kind of backlash! It is a clear case of no consensus to move and that is how he called it. Probably best if we draw a line under this now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC) OK! In all seriousness, we don't want to open the floor up to anything new on the actual styling argument. What we wanted to get out of this was a little more from the admin. I understand that it's difficult, and I know he's semi-retired, so I'm not going to say he was completely wrong not giving us any hints. However, if this flares up again any time soon, then it may be worth asking him, or another notable admin in this area, to lend a hand mediating and keeping us all grounded. drewmunn (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC) It is right to assert that "There was no clear consensus", and "the change would've gone against MOS:CT" (although my suggestion was consistent with the MOS). But it is not OK to asser "the title had been stable since September last year". The title has been under challenge continuously. "Stability" is not well measured by editors not move-warring. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC) As mentioned before, this issue isn't going away until we do it right. I mean that with respect to all parties, but also with a bit of matter of factness. The current title for this article is not correct. You can argue WP until we are all dead. This is not a matter of style, and the closer the film is to release, the more painfully obvious this error becomes: On Facebook today — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Facebook != RS. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Might help to know where that picture came from. A fan page? J.J. Abrams’s personal official page? And to Scjessey: It depends on the source that posts to it. —Frungi (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC) It's here, in case anyone is interested and can stomach navigating to that god-awful Facebook cesspool. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think anyone on either side of this is arguing that Paramount, the filmmakers, official sites and the mainstream press isn't spelling it with a cap I. It's whether Wikipedia should spell it with a cap I. At least that's one thing we can all agree on! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Actually, it’s whether the capital I is the first letter of a subtitle (if not, it should be lowercase here). That official post seems to indicate that it is, but I ask that any debate on that point be held in the appropriately titled section below rather than smearing arguments all over the place. —Frungi (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC) My comment has been copied below to carry forward the discussion in the appropriate area. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 21:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC) What is the difference between polish and Polish? One shines, and the other is a people. What will be happening conversationally when people talk about this movie, will people talk about seeing "Into Darkness" or "Trek into Darkness" ? Are people talking about seeing the new "Star Trek" or the new "Star" movie? convesationally it is clear that this movie should be "Star Trek Into Darkness" where the stylistic change is the the lack of colon or comma after Trek. Out of curiosity, why isn't the same furore happening over on "Star Trek: The Next Generation", which according to the rules, seems it should be "Star Trek: The next Generation"? 59.167.194.48 (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Because 'next' is an adverb, so doesn't fall under the same guideline as the prepositional 'into'. drewmunn (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) A better example would be Star Trek Nemesis, which is interpretable as "Nemesis of the star journey". Or "Star Trek Insurrection", which one could interpret as being about an insurrection during a star journey. Still, as it being a subtitle is clear from the formatting in the movie poster, Wikipedia (correctly and sensibly) lists them as "Star Trek: Nemesis" and "Star Trek: Insurrection". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.45.47 (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Okay, so the argument for making it lowercase seems to center around WP rules. In that case, I ask why pages for titles like "Two Weeks Notice" have not been corrected? The WP would say that the example I just used should be written as "Two Weeks' Notice," but it was not. As a result, the page does not have an apostrophe, either. WP does not always apply to titles. If you want to see just how stupid making the i lowercase is, just do a Google search, and look at the results. On the first page, *only* the wiki page has it as lowercase. DeeJaye6 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC) That's a bit different. The film is named one thing, which is grammatically incorrect. However, we can't change the name. If they'd named it "Two wEeks' Notice", we'd change it (capitalise the W, make the E lower), but we don't correct the grammar of someone else's name. drewmunn talk 17:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Summary of arguments I’d just like to summarize the arguments for both sides, just to make sure everything’s clear. Edit: This list has been replaced with the more complete (but still brief) page User:Frungi/Star Trek Into Darkness capitalization. I encourage all interested parties to read all the arguments and counterarguments for both sides there. Arguments for the lowercase I “Into Darkness” may not be a subtitle, and “Star Trek into Darkness” may have been intended to be read as a sentence. Assuming it’s not a subtitle, the MOS dictates a lowercase preposition. Treating “into Darkness” as a subtitle without punctuation would be original research. Allowing it to be interpreted as a subtitle would play into the studio's marketing. The creator said that the title would not have a subtitle with a colon. Arguments for the uppercase I “Into Darkness” may be a subtitle, in line with the precedence of every Star Trek movie title longer than two words. Assuming it is a subtitle, the MOS dictates the first word be capitalized. Treating “Into Darkness” as part of a sentence would be original research. Capitalizing the possible subtitle would allow it to be interpreted either way. Every official, and the vast majority of secondary, sources capitalize it, and Wikipedia should follow this real-world use. The sentence “Star trek into darkness” makes no grammatical sense. The creator said that the title would have a subtitle rather than a number, and that the subtitle would not have a colon. Does that cover it? —Frungi (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Yes. When on topic, that's what we've been saying for months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC) However, the discussion is closed and there was no consensus to move. We don't want to be having the same argument again so soon without any new information, otherwise we'll be going around in circles for months. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)Yes that's a good summary. I'd possibly add that capitalizing "Into" allows for both interpretations, whereas a lower case "into" only allows for one. Nsign (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Don't forget that Wikipedia does not have firm rules and If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them which by capitalising the I it would improve the article making it reflect more the official title and released material. MisterShiney ✉ 09:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Not everyone agrees with you. Hence the move request was closed with no consensus to move. Remember we are not discussing the merits of a move here again, just whether the closing admin correctly followed procedure. He did. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC) It is not longer "original research" to say that Into Darkness is a substitle. As we get closer to the release of the movie, the article's current name will become painfully obvious, even more so that now. Just today on Facebook from the official account of Star Trek: Star Trek: Into Darkness Say what you will about the source, it is an official source that is very clear in its statement. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 14:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC) And yet, in every other instance, the "official account of Star Trek" on Facebook says Star Trek Into Darkness with no colon. This debate is over. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC) This debate is not "over". No consensus is not a final decisison. Typically, "no consensus" means leave it alone for a couple of months. A couple of months plus the time spent in formal discussion before the close is probably most reasonable. How do you style a subtitle? You are unimpressed with June 4 2009. JJ Abrams: if they make a sequel, "it would have a subtitle instead of a number.". OK. Let's wait for new information. I'm sure there will be some in late May. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Enough already! There's a new section below if you want to carry on, but this conversation is not meant for discussing the original point of the request. drewmunn (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC) That was my point. I didn't mean it will never be debated again, just that this one had run its course. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Dude...I was adding a point to the summary! And it isn't a case of if the admin followed procedure, we are discussing his reasons, of which he provided were minimal. MisterShiney ✉ 10:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC) I respectfully disagree with Rob. What I have seen are two editors who were vociferous in insisting the title have a lowercase "into" based on an inflexible rigidity to Wikipedia style even when every major mainstream publication, from Time to The New York Times, as well as the filmmakers, spell it with an uppercase "Into." Issues of whether or not the last two words are a subtitle or whether there should be a colon are irrelevant and original research. For the administrator to have closed this discussion without addressing the fact that every style guide, Wikipedia's included, allows for common-sense exceptions, was premature. I'm not saying the admin had to agree that this was a time for an allowable exception. I'm saying that for an admin to close this discussion without acknowledging the fact that this encyclopedia stands alone with a spelling no other reputable source does is leaving the job incomplete. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC) What he said. Nsign (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Then we should wait for the closing admin to comment rather than try to open up the whole discussion again. Mr Shiney asked for his comment, so let's see what he says. And it's a hell of a lot more than two editors opposing the move. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC) "Treating Star Trek into Darkness as part of a sentence would be original research" - actually, no. It is used as such by Paramount in the official synopsis of the movie. And it makes grammatical sense, just as "long walk into obscurity" or "lost in space" or countless other similar constructs. The "arguments" presented above aren't presented neutrally. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Sjessey, its still original research as that press release can be interpreted as Paramount trying to be clever. There is no official confirmation. And still - if it is a sentence (and it may very well be) there are arguments for why "Into" should be capitalised. Nsign (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Please, everyone, stop! The discussion is closed as no consensus, and it's clear we're not going to find one unless there are further developments. Let's put this to bed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC) No, they’re presented from each viewpoint, at least that was my intent. Personally I feel it’s a subtitle and we should use a colon, but until and unless there is clear, incontrovertible evidence, it’s original research either way. —Frungi (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC) As I'd mentioned earlier, it's only Rob Sinden and Scjessey arguing vociferously for the lowercase "into." It was premature to close the RfC since while there may no be consensus for uppercase "Into," there's clearly no consensus for lowercase "into" either. That's a quandary, but it's not one served by closing the discussion. RfCs can be re-listed and that may be the best course here. Rob and Scjessey are going to say no, so let's presume that from the start and save them the trouble of saying so. What do other editors think?--Tenebrae (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC) I may disagree with the opposing editors, but I still think it’s a mistake to disregard their opinions. (Not that you’re doing that here, but some seem to have written them off as unreasonably stubborn.) I tried to represent them as fairly as possible here. So, do you think I missed any points from either side? —Frungi (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC) I'm not "arguing vociferously" for anything. My position is that we have policies and guidelines on Wikipedia for a reason, and a local consensus cannot arbitrarily ignore them because of an imaginary implied colon. Perhaps Rob and I are the only editors still defending Wikipedia's position because everyone else got tired of it weeks ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Just to clarify: It’s not an “implied colon.” It doesn’t matter what punctuation, if any, is used to separate a title and subtitle. The question is whether the movie is being marketed as “Title Subtitle”, following the precedence of the movie series up until the 2009 reboot. —Frungi (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Just to clarify: If it has a colon, it is TITLE: SUBTITLE. If it doesn't have a colon, it is TITLE. There's no middle ground. No colon means lowercase "into". -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Really? Wheer's the source for that "there's no middle ground" rule that applies to movie titles in English? No, really, that was just made up. The opposing view is being held to some impossibly high standard, but let's make up rules for these other views out of thin air. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 21:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC) No, it does not — because creator of a work has the right to title his book, poem or movie anything he wants to. Creative people don't necessarily play by the rules, and that means they can, as in this case, create a middle. You're saying you know better than J.J. Abrams, et al, what the title is. The strikes me as remarkable hubris. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC) I said marketed as “Title Subtitle”. If a separating colon is indeed mandatory, then the question becomes whether or not we should include a colon, rather than a matter of capitalization. —Frungi (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Actually, I find nothing in the MOS about how we should format subtitles. I’d prefer a colon in this case, but if nearly everyone (including well-respected newspapers) writes it as “Title Subtitle” with no separator, then so should we. If it is a subtitle, that is. —Frungi (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC) It seems to me that this is becoming more a question of how encyclopedic are we trying to be. IMO as an encyclopedia we should be trying to reflect, as accurately as possible, official sources and real-world usage. douts talk) 22:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC) I agree with everything douts and Tenebrae have said. Also, with respect Scjessey, your comment that "there is no middle ground" represents the core problem of why this will run and run until JJ Abrams himself comes on here and makes a proclamation. There should be a middle ground - this is stretching on because of an inflexible rigidity and adherence to a flexible style guide that leaves Wikipedia with its metaphorical dick in the wind - no primary and the vast majority of secondary sources render the title the way this article does. This is an encyclopedia. If we don't reflect real world usage, as several users have pointed out is the one of the points of this site, then what the hell is it for? Nsign (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC) What you don't seem to understand is that even if Abrams himself were to come to Wikipedia and make a proclamation that "into darkness" was meant to be a subtitle, it wouldn't matter. The fact that he/they chose to exclude the colon means that Wikipedia assumes there is no subtitle and the title is styled per MOS:CT. The only acceptable compromise would be the one suggested earlier about putting "stylized as Star Trek Into Darkness" in to the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Scjessey, what you are suggesting is illogical and bordering on moronic. It means that if evidence is available from official sources that a title is rendered one way, Wikipedia simply ignores it for no other reason than a clause in a guideline says it can do, not because it has to. It assumes something despite the fact it doesn't need to assume it. It makes a mockery of the whole point of Wikipedia - an encyclopedia that reflects and describes real-world stuff. Instead, it makes its own inflexible rules up contrary to what everyone else out there is doing. Can you not see that this is exactly the kind of thing that is meant in the MOS when it says use common sense and not everything will fall under those guidelines? Nsign (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Slipping it in before my suggestion doesn't invalidate the fact that we've digressed back into the initial argument. Please can we either give it a rest or start a completely new section to separate it from the old Move Request? Wikipedia: Boldly going where no MOS has gone before. drewmunn (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, sure. This is a brick wall now anyway. Nsign (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC) That should be This is a Brick Wall now Anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Nice :) Nsign (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC) May I suggest that, if this conversation is to continue, it's moved to a completely new talk section? We're under the old move request at the moment, and we're polluting a request for more info from the closing admin by continuing the content of the initial dispute. Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Why would this not be at Star Trek: Into Darkness like every other title of this sort? "Into Darkness" is obviously a subtitle, even set off with different font styling in the poster. It's no different from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, etc. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 15:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC) To address the underlying capitalization rules involved in this discussion, everyone's input here would be welcome. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC) I really should have mentioned this earlier, but I’ve deliberately left out the argument of “They used the words as part of a sentence in promotional materials” because I feel it’s irrelevant. This proves only that it’s possible to use the words as words, which was never in question, and only “Star Trek” was being used as a title there. —Frungi (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Is “Into Darkness” a subtitle?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the big question of the debate that’s been going on here, and as requested and because it makes sense, I’m starting a new section on it separate from the move discussion. As with Star Trek Generations et al., does this movie’s title follow the “Star Trek [subtitle]” format? In almost all material I’ve seen, the title lacks any punctuation between “Star Trek” and “Into Darkness”, but that may simply be a stylistic choice and one not covered by our MOS. At least one editor insists that there is no subtitle if there is no colon, but I believe that’s his stylistic choice, and as I said the MOS says nothing on the subject. I say it’s open to interpretation, but my personal preference would be to treat it as a subtitle and start the article with, possibly, “Star Trek: Into Darkness (stylized as Star Trek Into Darkness) ….” Thoughts? —Frungi (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC) If we do treat it as a subtitle, omit the "stylized as" one line version; it is seldom stylized that way except by sources that treat it as not a subtitle. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Yes. Any and all marketing material makes emphasis of the "Into Darkness" (In particular the trailer). It can stand alone and still be recognised as a the title of the film, just like the Star Wars Movies. To me, that means it is a subtitle. MisterShiney ✉ 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC) No - I am not aware of any sources that insert a colon into the title. I am not even aware of any sources that imply the existence of a phantom colon. In the absence of any further information, Wikipedia treats Star Trek into Darkness as not having a subtitle. As a matter of fact, Star Trek Generations, Star Trek First Contact, Star Trek Insurrection and Star Trek Nemesis are the same; however, these don't have the awkward preposition that created this issue in the first place and they are all currently mistitled by Wikipedia with colons (see official websites of each). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia uses a colon to to indicate the division between a title and subtitle. Alternatives include the comma, dash (not sure which one), the slash, and line feed. As the colon is a matter of style, it doesn't need a source, just acceptance of the Title/Subtitle format. Scjessey rejects that there is definitely a subtitle. As he is not alone, we are at an impass. It may be clarified by reviews of the movie, after its release. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Scjessey is correct on The Colon Question (and hey, that would have been a great episode title) - there are extant statements from the creators stating that they would not use a colon. There is also no primary or secondary source I am aware of that employs a colon. However, irritatingly and confusingly, it does NOT necessarily follow that the title is a sentence because we have no official confirmation that it is, titles do not follow normal grammatical rules and precedent points to it being unlikely. What pretty much every primary and secondary source does do is capitalise "into". Wikipedia should, to reflect real-world usage and stop the article looking glaringly and wilfully conspicuous, simply capitalise "Into" as everyone else has done. Both interpretations are then possible - and that's the actual situation at the moment. If we're already prepared to accept four "mistitled" Star Trek films as per the examples given above, arrived at using common-sense and a reflection of real world usage, then we should accept that the MOS needn't be rigidly adhered to in this case. Nsign (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC) The colon is irrelevant; I just used it here to separate the title from the subtitle, which (if “Into Darkness” is intended to be a subtitle) the producers opted not to do. It’s a matter of style, nothing more. Same with the other titles you listed. —Frungi (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Probably – the posters and such style the "Star Trek" and "Into Darkness" parts quite differently, as if it's intended to be a subtitle. Since they use separate lines (see images), they don't need a colon; but we would, if we want to treat it that way. The present single-title format seems like an odd title; it feels like there should be a break there. This image has "Star Trek II Into Darkness". And this one and this one and this one and this one use a colon. Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Those are not insignificant secondary sources. I remain of the view that "Star Trek: Into Darkness" is the most reasonable title. "Star Trek II Into Darkness" shows that the authors/producers are into playing games with reality. I fully expect the local theatres to list it as "Star Trek 12: Into Darkness". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Whether it's a subtitle or not is irrelevant. Any guesses on our part is POV original-research. The only thing we know with any certainty is that the official source and every major mainstream publication, from Time to The New York Times, spells it '"Star Trek Into Darkness. The whole "is it a subtitle" argument is a smokescreen obscuring the fact that filmmakers, as creative people, chose a deliberately creative way to spell the title. We have to respect their choice. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Choosing an appropriate title is a very reasonable editorial decision, and involves our own style decisions. The factors discussed here rise to nowhere near the levels prohibited by WP:NOR. That said, the "official source and every major mainstream publication" is an important consideration. The MOS should exempt cases where application of the standard MOS guideline alters meaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Comment. Jesus! Are we still at this? For us to decide whether or not this is a subtitle would be Original Research and seems like a back-door attempt to circumvent the Manual of Style and discredit the above move discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Relax please Rob. Frungi is new here, but there is nothing new. WP:NOR is about editors doing calculations, or combining multiple sources to make a conclusion - we are not doing that. We are allowed to make the subtitle decision (and we reached no consensus). It's not a back door attempt. The above MR discussion was pretty thorough and well run and has all participants respecting the close. It will take very significant new information to justify a fresh move discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC) I agree with tenebrae and Robsinden (to an extent). We have no definitive answer on the subtitle question so its pointless debating it - we'll get nowhere. The decision, comrades, should be whether or not to capitalise "Into" like every major primary and secondary source does to reflect real-world usage and be, y'know, encyclopedic. Nsign (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Which was discussed ad nauseum above and the result was no consensus to move. Therefore I suggest we all take a much needed break, as we're not about to find consensus to make an exception to MOS:CT any time soon. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC) That being said, I urge interested parties to join this discussion concerning MOS:CT if they have an issue with the lowercase preposition guideline. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC) We do have a definitive answer, the lack of acceptance of that answer, not withstanding. WP is fine and it covers this scenario just fine. The matter of fact is that Into Darkness is a subtitle, and following the rules of WP, it should be treated with a capital letter for "Into". There are official sources that have demonstrated this repeatedly, including a recent posting from the official Facebook account that inserts a colon after the trademark "Star Trek". The current article name is actually in violation of WP, so the argument for "into" is essentially arguing to keep the title in violation of WP by referring to irrelevant WP sections. At this point, it seems a comment from J.J. Abrams himself directly about this conversation wouldn't resolve the error. I suppose we can petition J.J. Abrams to rename his movie so it matches the Wikipedia article. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 21:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC) No, we do not have a definitive answer. With only a single source (Facebook!) including a colon, there's just no evidence to support the subtitle theory. Rehashing this again and again will not serve any useful purpose. Unless something significant changes, I suggest we abandon this and focus on improving the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I linked four sources with colon above; none of them was facebook. It's not an unreasonable way for them to set the title, given that the intended structure is interpreted (by them) as Title: Subtitle. We are so far interpreting it the other way, in which case lower case "into" is a reasonable way to set it. The other way, with no colon and capitalized "Into", is also reasonable, and common; it just doesn't fit WP styling very well. Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC) As noted, lack of acceptance not withstanding. You are quick to dismiss actual external sources, but more than happy to make up your own rules to suit your personal beliefs in this discussion (commenting on your "no middle ground" comment above). This issue isn't going away until the article is corrected. This process is just going to get more painful as we get closer to the release. Of course, you could always hope that J.J. Abrams is aware of this debate and change the movie's title just to screw with us. But, right now, the title is wrong. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 21:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Re Scjessey’s stance on the subtitle matter, I’ve actually explicitly asked him about that on his Talk page, and he very kindly answered. I invite you to go read it, and I urge you to always consider that the opposing side of an argument may have good reason for opposing. I still personally disagree with his conclusion as I said there and in multiple places on here, but he does have a point. Also, I’ll point out that this is not a place for personal attacks like accusing him of making up his own rules. —Frungi (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC) The most telling piece of evidence that it is indeed a subtitle is the trailer. I have never seen, nor do I know of any other film without a subtitle that shows the title on different screens with a CLEAR, DISTINCT gap between the 2. Also, since titles (the entire title) is a proper noun, basic english grammer DEMANDS that each and every word of the title MUST be capitalised. Any 9 year old could tell you that proper nouns should be capitalised. douts (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Look up title capitalization. Articles (a/an, the) and prepositions, especially short ones, are nearly universally not capitalized within a title. (Short verbs like “is” are also often not capitalized, but that’s another issue.) I agree with your first point here, but your second is fallacious. —Frungi (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I absolutely reject this notion that the title needs to be "corrected". If, in the future, a consensus forms around reclassifying "into darkness" as a distinct subtitle, then the "into" will need to be presented with a capital "I". But if that consensus doesn't form, it will stay as it is unless some change in MOS:CT occurs (and that is something under discussion). In the meantime, all that derogatory bullshit about "basic english grammer [sic]" and 9-year-olds needs to stop right the fuck now, okay? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I agree with Scjessey's 2nd and 3rd sentences. And also that grandma demands no such thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Calm down, everyone. No need for slinging mud at each other. Scjessey - I am quite uninterested in going over old ground but your comment that "there is just no evidence to support the subtitle theory" is incorrect as a glance through the reams of discussion and argument above us here will attest. Nsign (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I'm really dismayed by the fact that if a writer, an artist, or any creative person titles something a certain way that we would presume to change it. The Kansas' song "Carry On Wayward Son" is not "Carry on Wayward Son" or "Carry on, Wayward Son." Cummings' book is 5 is not Is 5. Where do we get off changing J.J. Abrams title — as he himself gives it — either by adding a colon or lowercasing the I? Do we really need to add a rule to Wikipedia saying we have to give titles as the creator titled something? There is nothing in the MOS that allows us to change creators' title to what we think they should be. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC) “Do we really need to add a rule to Wikipedia saying we have to give titles as the creator titled something?” Personally, yes, I think we should. We already do this to some extent (e.g. the article title of iPod). Exceptions to the rule should include completely unreasonable and little-used creator-given titles. —Frungi (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Agreed, 100%. douts (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC) I disagree, because then you'll have arguments over almost every composition title. And anyway, that is something that should be discussed at WT:MOS, not here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC) I agree with Scjessey. If we are to assume that the capitalization of letters in a title is always a significant "creative" choice (as it is in some specific cases, like the case of is 5 that Tenebrae gives above) then madness will follow. For this film, the title has been represented in official sources both as "Star Trek Into Darkness" and as "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS". So which is the specific "creators" choice of title? All caps or just caps for the first letters of the words? Or is the more reasonable conclusion that capitalization is not an intrinsic feature of the title, thus not a "creative" choice at all? If the capitalization of The First Letters In The Title were an important "creative" decision, you would not see it IN ALL CAPS on the poster and in the trailer - the main ways the title is communicated to the public. The idea that a capital "I" is of some "creative" significance is nonsense. 99.192.55.5 (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC) I imagine all-caps would fall under unreasonable and little-used. The majority of secondary sources do not use all-caps for titles. In this particular case, they do capitalize “Into”. —Frungi (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC) All-caps falls under its own Wikipedia guideline. And while 99.192.55.5 (talk) says something might or might not be a reasonable conclusion, the fact is that it's a conclusion, which is original research. And for any of us to say that we're privy to whether something is a "creative choice" or not is quite hubristic. You say, "The idea that a capital "I" is of some "creative" significance is nonsense." As an author myself, I say it's not nonsense: J.J. Abrams certainly knows basic grammar. So who's right? It's POV. All we can do is what every responsible journalistic publication has done and respect the creator's title as the creator made it. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC) No, all we can do is respect the style guidelines as set out by THIS publication. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC) But those guidelines don’t address how subtitles should or should not be formatted. WP is treating the title differently from all available sources, and from every previous film in the franchise, and that’s WP:OR. Of course, those who feel there is no subtitle also claim that playing it safe and following that firmly established precedent is OR. Point is, WP gives no guidance on which assumption should be made. —Frungi (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Additionally, it's well-established that guidelines (as opposed to policies) are flexible. And Rob Sinden's insistence on a spelling that no mainstream outlet nor the filmmakers themselves use is a violation of the policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which reads, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --Tenebrae (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC) It's only one point of view that by ignoring all rules will it improve Wikipedia. As the no-consensus move request above shows, there is opposition to this point of view. In the event of this non consensus to ignore the rules, we should be following them. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC) We shouldn't be making any assumptions. Any assumption is WP:OR. We should be taking this at face value, which, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is a sentence. But we've gone over this ad nauseum above, and there was no consensus to move. Let's put this to bed until we have further evidence or information. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC) And this notion that "into" is not the same spelling as "Into" is utter nonsense. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Agreed. Apparently, I'm insisting on a spelling that differs from that of the filmmakers! I'm fairly sure I spell "into" the same way that anyone else does! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC) This also has been discussed before: [3]. As for assumptions, treating it as a phrase (not a sentence—there is no predicate) is also an assumption, and one that there is more historical and stylistic evidence against than for, as described elsewhere on this page. —Frungi (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Actually, I do agree with Rob that the title needs to be taken at face value. So, seriously, it's good to have common ground. I think we have differences on what that means, but it's a good place to start. For the record, as someone in publishing and journalism, if I write, "The Dog jumped over the Couch," the words "dog" and couch" are indeed misspelled. Errant capitalization is a misspelling. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC) As an Englishman who knows English pretty well, I can tell you Dog and Couch are not misspelled. They are just styled improperly and do not change the meaning of the words or the sentence. If you were correct, how would you account for all the misspellings in this paragraph? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." -- Scjessey (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC) ^^In those days they used to capitlise nouns, like they do in modern german — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.11.29.103 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Lack of education. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC) People capitalized all sorts of weird things back then. Bad example in a discussion of contemporary usage, and I don’t see how it’s supposed to support the argument of capitalization vs spelling. (For the record, this meaning of “spelling” is new to me, but I’m not a professional in a field of writing.) —Frungi (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC) There is a traditional legal doctrine of statutory construction which states that the specific governs the general. See, e.g., Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 445 (1987). Here, the wiki guideline MOS:CT would be "general" while "the official source and every major mainstream publication, from Time to The New York Times, spells it 'Star Trek Into Darkness'" cited by Tenebrae would be "specific." Thus, the word "into" in the title Star Trek Into Darkness should be capitalized to conform with the cited sources. Jjuo (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure I see the link between taxation[4] and orthography, or how United States case law is relevant in applying manuals of style! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Comment. The pro-capitalisation stance here seems to hinge on the assumption that there is a creative decision on the part of the author(s) to capitalise. It could just be that they are using a different style guideline to us. Do we have a source to say that there was a conscious decision to capitalise the "i"? Do we have a source (originating from after the announcement of the title) that "Into Darkness" is a subtitle? No? Until then, there's not much more we can discuss, and we'll have to take the title as given at its face value and apply our style guideline, as anything else can be considered original research. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Why demand a source from after the announcement? Is there a source claiming that Abrams changed his mind about using a subtitle? The “creative decision” is that it’s a subtitle, as in e.g. Star Trek Generations (where “Generations” is generally recognized as a subtitle). Granted, being the first movie after a reboot makes it less of a certainty, but we still believe it’s the safer assumption—and it’s an assumption either way. Those opposed to capitalization are assuming something that seems significantly less likely, given the franchise’s history. At present, the best solution to avoid OR is to go with the universally used styling: capital I, no colon. If and when the intent becomes clear, it’s easily remedied by removing one or adding the other. —Frungi (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC) If we have a source after the announcement of the title, then we have an argument. All we have is a statement of intent from Abrams - we don't know if he followed through. And the only solution to avoid OR is not to try and second guess intentions, we have to take the title at face value - no colon = no subtitle, and thus a single phrase, to which we should apply the established Wikipedia style guide. ANYTHING else is OR. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Oh come on! He has blatantly followed through (no other action implied). You only need to look at the official trailer for goodness sake and any other reliable source reporting about the film! I seriously do not understand how or why some editors are still arguing about this. MisterShiney ✉ 20:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC) In an attempt to help break this log-jam over whether to apply a wiki guideline to override numerous external references and sources showing "Into" as being capitalized in the title, I cited the well-accepted doctrine of statutory construction (which is how courts construe the different laws and rules that govern us) that "the specific governs the general." The snarky comments of Rob Sinden aside (which misses the forest for the trees), courts often deal with situations where two parties argue that following one rule would lead one result, and following another rule would lead to a different result--and a court may resolve the dispute by following the more specific rule over the more general one. In addition, the consensus of outside sources and references also appear to support capitalizing "Into." Indeed, the official website (including the <title> metatag) uses "Star Trek Into Darkness" which is a piece of specific evidence that should be persuasive. Yet some continue to argue internally that the general guidelines of a style manual should override this objective external evidence of specific usage. To avoid this discussion becoming even more like a debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the default should be to follow the official source, which also would be consistent with the guideline of no original research, unless a consensus to the contrary is reached. Jjuo (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC) That sounds great, but unfortunately that is not the way Wikipedia works. The actual title of the movie is "Star Trek Into Darkness" and we all agree on that; however, under Wikipedia's styling guidelines and titling policies we should present that as "Star Trek into Darkness". Despite exhaustive discussion over many months, no consensus has formed to ignore the policies and guidelines and make an exception for this particular composition title. From this point on, there are only two possible outcomes that involve changing it. The first is if Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are changed (and they are currently being discussed). The second (somewhat more unlikely) is if the producers of the movie decide to put a colon (or similar) into the title. Assuming neither of those conditions apply, any further discussion or debate is a complete waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) No. However the US judicial system works, this is not the case for Wikipedia. The default is to follow our style guide, not someone else's. Look. We had a move discussion, and there was no consensus to move, so we default to our style guide. It's too soon to start another move discussion, as there is no additional information/evidence since then. We can discuss the whole thing over and over again, once more evidence comes to light. Until then, there's nothing more to say that hasn't already been said. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I think Scjessey said it better, but we're basically saying exactly the same thing!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Tightly sticking to rules and procedures is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, yet this appears to be approach taken by some. It might have useful to look at this issue from a different perspective to break through this gridlock, but it seems that people have rigidly settled into their respective camps. Jjuo (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Jjuo is correct. Two editors are arguing that Wikipedia manual of style is completely rigid and inflexible, which is demonstrably not so, and they also ignore WP:COMMON. In response to one comment, no one is assuming anything about a conscious creative decision. We're simply reporting what the creative people said. Period. People may disagree and have different opinions, but let's not say things that are blatantly false. RE "an Englishman who knows English pretty well": Yes, and I'm sure you can write English. That doesn't automatically make one a writer. Star Trek aside, I as a layman wouldn't tell a surgeon he was cutting into someone the wrong way. Telling a professional writer, editor and journalist that "Dog" and "Couch" were not misspelled by capitalizing, or conversely that "london" is not a misspelling, is simply incorrect. If a copy editor were to let those misspellings go, he or she would be fired.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Or if he referred to miscapitalization as misspelling... Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I presume Tenebrae does so regularly and continues to be employed. —Frungi (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry, Tenebrae, but you are wrong about this. Lowercasing "into" doesn't turn it into a spelling mistake. That's just crazy talk. And there are more than two of us arguing in opposition to a change, it is just that your merry band of anarchists have worn everyone else down. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Someone who doesn't agree with you is an "anarchist"? Thanks for the ad hominem attack. If I'm an anarchist, then so is every newspaper and magazine fro Time to The New York Times and the filmmakers themselves. Oh, wait — anarchists are the ones who go against order and the rules of a larger society in order to promote their own manifesto without compromise, flexibility, or integration with the real world. Hmm. I wonder who's really the "anarchist." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I have been following this discussion since I "voted" above. I am not very experienced with Wikipedia, but I am aware of the often-repeated mantra of assuming good faith. Both Rob and Simon (and others) have used the term "anarchy" in this related discussion when talking about the problem of everyone having a different opinion if there is no guideline. It is possible that Simon was using the term "anarchist" in that context and not trying to make an ad hominem attack. Perhaps a few people could do with dialing back their rhetoric. - 76.124.173.41 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Absolutely correct, 76.x. The "anarchist" thing is indeed a reference to the idea that if we just renamed things willy nilly, it would be tantamount to anarchy. If I had been making an ad hominem attack, it would've been more obvious, motherfucker! (Obviously meant to be a joke, guys.) -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC) A sense of humor is important, and I'll give you points for that one. While I still don't appreciate the labeling, it's hard to be upset when someone can put their behavior in lighthearted perspective. Sincere kudos to you for it, Scjessey. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC) (EC) "Common sense" isn't a justification for anything since it's also "common sense" that the guidelines have been codified as such for a good reason. "Common sense" doesn't support either side. Also, saying that something is "flexible" doesn't mean that that thing should automatically bend over backwards. There has to be a well thought-out reason as to why the rules should be bent. So, please stop using these two shallow "arguments". DonQuixote (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Well-thought-out reasons have been brought up: Every source styles it the same way, including ones that normally use lowercase for prepositions—every instance of “Into Darkness” has it capitalized. Changing the title here either way (by lowercasing “Into” or by adding a colon) would force a single reading when it’s demonstrably unclear to WIkipedia which one is correct. There are other reasons based on the fact that it’s a subtitle, but as that’s in dispute, I’ll let those lie. —Frungi (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, so please use those rather than invoking "common sense" or "flexible". DonQuixote (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved in this for a few months, but it says something that nearly every edit made to the article is either someone capitalising the "I", or one of us reverting it. drewmunn (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC) It says the vast majority of editors visiting the article either don't know or don't care about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I'm going more with the "don't think it's right". Just because the US has the death penalty doesn't mean I agree that's it's right. drewmunn (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC) It appears that a majority of editors believe the "Into" should be capitalized (based on a variety of different reasons including external sources), and a minority believe that "into" should remain in lowercase based on a wiki guideline, which prevents consensus (and, based on a prior comment from an editor in the minority that either the guideline must be changed or the producers add a semicolon to the title before he would change his position, consensus probably will never be achieved absent the occurrence of these unlikely events). If the dispute was based on two opposing external sources, I would agree that defaulting to the wiki guideline would be appropriate. However, that is not what is happening. Instead, a minority of editors are tightly sticking to rules and procedures against what a majority of editors believe to be correct. Because this is a consensus-based enterprise, the majority cannot overrule the minority—but this creates a filibuster situation. Is the minority willing to accept that a well-reasoned majority view is a sufficient basis to justify an exception to a wiki guideline? I suggest this would be consistent with the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. " Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." Jjuo (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I'm willing to accept a greater number of individuals think the article should be renamed despite Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; however, it is important to understand that the minority is not a small one, even if it has been a less vocal constinuency of late. Equating this scenario with a filibuster implies the minority is being obstinate and unreasonable, and I reject that categorically. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Where one editorial group (A) is relying solely on wiki guidelines to block a change another editorial group (B) is seeking based on external sources, I would suggest that the Group A should give weight to the fact that Group B represents a majority view. I am not saying that the minority should always concede to the majority, and the guidelines clearly state that Wikipedia is not a democracy. But that does not mean that the fact a majority (or even a sizable minority) view should not be given weight when deciding whether to make an exception to a style guideline. Jjuo (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)I honestly don’t understand the opposition to capitalization as well as I would like. Maybe that’s simply because I’m on the other side, or maybe I’m missing something, but it just seems to me that those in opposition are being unreasonable—sticking to our policies and guidelines no matter the argument for an exception, and preferring a less likely reading over the more likely. I’m not trying to accuse here; I just don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way, and I’m hoping that I’ve misinterpreted things and someone corrects my (and likely others’) misunderstandings. —Frungi (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I probably should have copied this here from WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY earlier, since it succinctly says what I've been saying and is a policy page that supersedes guideline pages: "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC) With respect to the position that "Into" should be capitalized only if either the guideline is changed or the producers add a semicolon to the title, that is an "overly strict" approach which tightly sticks to the style guideline without exception. The first example would not represent an exception to the guideline because the guideline itself is being changed. Nor would the second example represent an exception to the guideline because by breaking the title into two parts, the first and last words of the two titles would be capitalized under the rules. So instead of keeping an open mind to making an exception to the guideline, this approach ignores the Wikipedia admonitions previously discussed by essentially demanding strict adherence. Jjuo (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC) This is my perception as well. So, following from my most recent post, assuming good faith and taking for granted that there are circumstances under which Scjessey, Rob Sinden, et al. would allow an exception: What would those circumstances be, or what arguments would be necessary? —Frungi (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC) A reliable source that says that it's not a stylistic choice but rather that the "i" must be capitalised...that is, somemthing that does not involve interpretation, synthesis, POV or original research. Something that does not involve interpretation, synthesis, POV or original research...that is, a reliable source that says that it's not a stylistic choice but rather that the "i" must be capitalised. DonQuixote (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC) That seems reasonable, though I still don’t understand why it isn’t a factor that no reliable source seems to use a lowercase I. —Frungi (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC) In an earlier discussion, one editor noted that "[Star] Trek Into" could be interpreted to be a phrasal verb (verb + particle), and then both words should be capitalized under the MOS. But then people started disputing whether "trek" was a noun or a verb in the title, and DonQuixote asserted that this was all "original research" and hence improper under wiki principles. Yet there remains two plausible interpretations of the title—one which would lead to using the lowercase, and one leading to the uppercase—depending on which interpretation is adopted. Because choosing between them would constitute "original research," the initial question is not whether to make an exception to the MOS—but rather which interpretation of the title should be adopted in applying the MOS. In this light, one must ask why is one group allowed to claim its lowercase interpretation as the default when there is another plausible interpretation of the title that would lead to using the uppercase "Into" under the MOS? Because the MOS can support using either lowercase or uppercase depending on one's interpretation of the title, the MOS should not be relied upon to resolve the issue. It would effectively adopt one editorial group's "interpretation" over another editorial group, which would be clearly improper under wiki principles. Therefore, outside sources must be consulted. The most reliable and authoritative source available appears to be the official Star Trek website which uses the capitalized "Into" (and this usage also has been adopted by the news media). The fact that a majority of editors also appear to agree is just gravy at this point. Jjuo (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I suggest you split this one off into a new section. Incidentally, I’d wondered the same thing at times. —Frungi (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Rather than start a new section, we should just take a break from this discussion, as, until we have some further information, we're just going round in circles. We've had the move discussion and the result was found with no consensus to make an exception to the guideline and thus we should follow the guideline and not capitalise. Please accept this and stop trying to bulldozer this move through. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC) “We've had the move discussion and the result was found with no consensus”—Right. That’s why we’ve been continuing to seek consensus. Mainly by trying to convince each other of our respective points of view, but still. —Frungi (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC) In the light of no further information, we're not likely to find further consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Quite simply, "trek into" is not a phrasal verb. Therefore if we default to our MOS, it doesn't matter whether "trek" is a noun or a verb, "into" should not be capitalised. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Granted, but the same argument applies to the question of whether “Into Darkness” is an unpunctuated subtitle. You feel it isn’t, so therefore we should all treat it like it isn’t, even though some of us feel that there is more evidence that it is. Why should we default to a (from the latter perspective) less supported interpretation? Capitalizing the word would allow for both interpretations, rather than forcing one, and it would be consistent with—correct me if I’m wrong—every reliable source without exception. (And as I’ve said before, our MOS says nothing on the subject of subtitles, including what if any punctuation to use.) —Frungi (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC) We don't know whether or not it is an unpunctuated subtitle. For this reason, anything other than taking it at its face value is WP:OR. Taking it at face value avoids the need to interpret it one way or another. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Except, at face value, a preposition is universally capitalized. (If I’m wrong and there is an RS where it’s not, please share.) —Frungi (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC) No, at face value, "into" is a preposition. Prepositions are not capitalised as per our MOS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I haven't participated in this discussion much, mostly because I have a track record when it comes to disputes over the capitalisation of individual letters and don't wish to add to it, but I will quickly lay out my feelings on it. First, I think it's clear that there is no consensus as to whether "Into Darkness" is a subtitle or not, nor is it likely that there will be consensus anytime soon. Second, there is not (I hope) any dispute about whether or not the word "into" is a preposition in this context. The word is always a preposition, and any reputable dictionary will tell you so. The dispute is, the finer points of English grammar aside, whether "Into" should be capitalised. If it were indisputably a subtitle, punctuated or un-, the case would be clear, and we would capitalise it, for the simple reason that not capitalising the initial word of a subtitle would be unprecedented and, therefore, original research. The inverse is not necessarily true -- even if it were definitively proven to be not a subtitle, but a verbal phrase or some other construct, consensus would still be able to override the common and MoS-sanctioned practice of not capitalising prepositions. MoS is not policy, and the issue of title case is a stylistic, and not a grammatical issue. While grammar cannot be subjected to popular vote, style can. My view is that "Into Darkness" should be capitalised to avoid ambiguity. I also think it's a subtitle, but that's unrelated to my preference for capitalisation. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC) "Into" is not always a preposition. See, for example, Talk:He's_Just_Not_That_into_You_(film). There is no contestest here, however, that it is a preposition in the title. The question is only whether there is an implied colon, or maybe possibly so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks Evan for your input, and I largely agree with your points, which kind of sum up the whole argument! However, we had the move discussion, and there was no consensus to make an exception to our MOS in this case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Also, the answer to the question why the lowercase is the default is that the default is the MOS. That is, a title is taken as to be just a title with nothing special about it and thus taken to be treated as any other title, which includes being subjected to the MOS. Treating the title as being special and thus exempt from the manual of style is interpretation and original research without a reliable source stating explicitly that the title is something special. So, as Evan points out, if it were indisputably a subtitle, then it has to be a subtitle, otherwise, according to the MOS, it's a stylistic choice on our part. As for outside sources, they've used Star Trek Into Darkness, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS and Star Trek into Darkness, so there's nothing that really says that one version must be preferred over another. DonQuixote (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC) You're forgetting "Star Trek: Into Darkness" and "STAR TREK - INTO DARKNESS", both of which have been used by reputable sources. Moral of the story, there's nothing we can do to prove either way at the moment. If we do decide in the future to change it, then we should look at it without all this previous baggage, but until then, this conversation will just be circular. I propose we ban this discussion for a month or so, to give people a break; maybe members of both sides can rationalise given time away from the front line. Our MoS is both a valuable resource, and sometimes a hindrance to progress. We've all done what we can to try and fight our corners, and an official conclusion has been reached for now. It's unlikely either side will win consensus, so we're currently defaulted to MoS. However, that does not mean MoS wins, just that it's defaulted. We're wasting time, effort, and server space at the moment, and potentially hindering the progress of the discussion, should new evidence come to light in the future. drewmunn (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Well said. I agree about this circuitous discussion and support stepping away for the time being. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Agreed! [5][6][7][8][9] --15:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsinden (talk • contribs) Disagree. It is [{WP:NOR|original research]] to interpret the title as anything but what the filmmaker says it is. If no exception is made to a guideline when every mainstream source and the filmmakers themselves spell something a certain way, then when can can exception be made? There's no reason for lowercase to be the default against reality. At the least, an encyclopedia needs to recognize that the cap-I spelling is used everywhere except Wikipedia. Since this discussion is about an overall change, including the title, to a cap-I spelling, then what I'm proposing is outside the purview of this. Which is: Stating right in the lead, "Star Trek into Darkness or Star Trek Into Darkness (latter spelling per mainstream sources and the filmmakers, former spelling per Wikipedia guidelines) is a...." Surely we can all agree on this compromise that doesn't change the article title or spelling throughout, but acknowledges what we all agree to be true and accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC) We're not interpreting the title "as anything but what the filmmaker says it is", we're just applying the styling as outlined in our style guide. Please stop confusing spelling with styling. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC) No problem — I'm willing to leave aside our semantic differences and not bring the terms up again. Let's all address the larger issue of and see if we reach a compromise as I suggest. Wikipedia, after all, works on both consensus and compromise. We're all passionate and intelligent, and I'd like to think we're all reasonable and capable of finding a middle ground. I'd hate to think we're Tea Party Republicans!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC) The reason we're defaulting to lowercase is because that's what it was prior to this discussion starting. It's nothing to do with MoS, or any user's preference. It's simply that no action can be taken unless consensus is reached, and no action just happens to fit with the MoS. If the article was already called "Star Trek Into Darkness", it would have defaulted to capitalised, because we would not have reached a consensus to move it to anything else. We can cite all the evidence in the world, but we're still not going to get anywhere by carrying this on. Progress is not a constant battle, it's a timely process. Let's all listen to Aesop, do as the subtitle below suggests, and take a break. Otherwise, I'll speedy move the page to "That Star Trek Film (2013)". Fun fact: counting only discussions from the opening of the Move Request until now, we've written nearly 2MB of pure text arguing over 1 letter. drewmunn (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Actually, the reason we're defaulting to lowercase is due to the MOS. Have a look at WP:RMCI which advises the closing admin to follow naming conventions in the event of a controversial move. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Not directly; as far as reasoning from the closing admin, it was simply because no consensus was reached. The page originally resided at "into Darkness" because of the MoS, and didn't move to anything else because no consensus was reached as the the new location. It's possible that this was part of his reasoning, but saying that would be OR! drewmunn (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Really? No one wants to discuss a compromise solution that would retain the lowercase i in the title and throughout, while acknowledging in the lead the uppercase I? It's consistent with "Seven (sometimes stylized as Se7en)" at Seven (film) and "Die Hard 2 (sometimes referred to as Die Hard 2: Die Harder)" at Die Hard 2. We can't just bury our heads in the sand the pretend the uppercase-I spelling doesn't exist. When editors can't reach consensus, we're supposed to compromise. This suggestion should give both sides what each feels is necessary while including each's opposite side. What do you say? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Convenience break (Excuse the... er... subtitle. It's irritating trying to add comments to an enormous section.) Earlier, Frungi said: "Granted, but the same argument applies to the question of whether “Into Darkness” is an unpunctuated subtitle. You feel it isn’t, so therefore we should all treat it like it isn’t, even though some of us feel that there is more evidence that it is." Actually, there is concrete evidence that it is not a subtitle. Remember, Paramount used "Star Trek Into Darkness" as part of a sentence in their official synopsis. No colon and used in a sentence are two very compelling and official reasons why we can put the subtitle theory in the trash (it also obliterates the "phrasal verb" or "misspelling" theories). This discussion is about only one thing: do we have a consensus to go against MOS:CT? A majority think yes, but the minority is significant enough that no consensus exists. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC) In the meantime, a compromise solution exists (see above), and perhaps we can all meet each other part way, which is in the spirit of WIkipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Comment: The current focus on the MOS may be misplaced. There appear to be several interpretations (or grammatical constructions/deconstructions) of the title "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS". (1) The word "INTO" is a preposition. (2) The phrase "INTO DARKNESS" is a subtitle (or a separable title). (3) "TREK INTO" is a phrasal verb. Under interpretation #1, "into" should not be capitalized under the MOS (unless an exception is made). Under interpretation #2, "Into" should be capitalized under the MOS (although some may argue that this is instead an accepted exception to the MOS). Under interpretation #3, "Into" should be capitalized under the MOS (and I note that it appears well-accepted that "run into" is a phrasal verb, so it is possible for the word "into" to be part of a phrasal verb). Because the MOS will lead to different capitalizations depending on how one interprets the phrase "star trek into darkness," the reliance by some on the MOS is misplaced. If "INTO" is merely a preposition, then the question becomes whether the word "into" is sufficiently important to the title that an exception should be made to the MOS to capitalize it in this particular instance. But if "INTO DARKNESS" is a subtitle, then there appears to be no dispute that "into" should be capitalized (see, e.g., Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan). But is this grammatical interpretation "original research" or POV that is inappropriate for determining the content of a Wikipedia article? If so, and given that each side has invested so much mental energy into their respective positions, we are going down a rabbit hole where consensus on the proper interpretation may not be possible. Instead of focusing on whether one side should "win" its interpretative argument, we should focus on finding a way to resolve the impasse because the process seems broken at this point (and becoming more like the Monty Python argument sketch). Perhaps the framework should be changed to determining whether people can agree on a sufficiently authoritative external source to resolve this matter without having to definitively resolve the grammatical interpretation of the title (the ambiguity of which may have been intentional), or to find some other compromise. Any other suggestions? Jjuo (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC) There's no ambiguity. "Into" is absolutely a preposition, and "into darkness" is not a subtitle because Paramount used it in a sentence. Let's not pretend this is even up for debate. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC) None of us here can say "this is [not] even up for debate" when clearly a number of editors are debating it and the filmmakers themselves and every other mainstream source in the English-speaking language spells it with a capital I. The titles of books, films and songs don't have to follow grammatical rules, as many examples in this debate have pointed out. And regardless: I have suggested a compromise solution that gives each side something they want. How about let's all discuss this like reasonable adults and not extremists. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC) "Into" is always a preposition. It does not cease to be such when it's included in a verb phrase, and I'd be very interested to know how so many people taking part in this discussion have fallen under the delusion that it does. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC) There are several sources which state that "run into" is a phrasal verb. See http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/run-into and http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/phrasal-verbs/run+into.html. But this misses the forest for the trees, and is not relevant to the question posed earlier. Instead of arguing in favor of your POV, do you have a suggestion for a framework or other compromise (other than wait from some new evidence that likely will never come or ever be satisfactory to change either side's opinion)? Jjuo (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC) “"into darkness" is not a subtitle because Paramount used it in a sentence.” I continue to fail to see how this is relevant. As I’ve said before, it’s proof of nothing but that whoever wrote it knows how to write in English. If the official title were Star Trek: Into Darkness or even Star Trek 2 Into Darkness, they could still very well have written the promotional copy with “… that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.” It doesn’t reveal the context in which the producers imagined the title; it’s promotional copy. Nothing more. Now let’s all stop doing original research and reading too far into things. But while we’re still on the subject, I’m not aware of any title in any medium where a supposedly mid-title preposition (or anything but a noun, verb, or article) begins a common short form, as is the case with “'Into Darkness”. So unless I’m mistaken, that’s another piece of evidence for. —Frungi (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Comment: It doesn't matter. "Every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words (as defined below)." The real question is, "is 'into' important?" Into isn't an everyday preposition, and although it is only four letters long, it needs to be capitalized. 1) It is a compound preposition (it is more common in other languages to join the words, but not unheard of in English.) The MOS says compound prepositions are capitalized. If the title were 'Star Trek In to Darkness' the In would be capitalized per the rules. The fact that the space is removed does not change the rule. 2) It is a directional spatial adpositions which can only combine with verbs that involve motion. Thus for the sentence to make any sense, Trek MUST be a verb. Simon Pegg said it as a verb. The official marketing team uses it as a verb in sentences. To say it is not a verb is original research. 3) Paramount is using it as a phrasal verb. If it is a sentence the Catenae must be (Star ((Trek Into) Darkness)). Star becomes a modifier of the phrase Trek Into Darkness, similar to if I said Futuristic Trek Into Darkness. We can treat the word Star as a synonym for 'in Space." In short. If it is a subtitle it should be capitalized. If it is a sentence it should be capitalized because a) it is a compound preposition but more specifically a directional spatial adpositions, b) it is a particle of a phrasal verb and c) directional spatial adpositions can only combine with verbs that involve motion. In conclusion: the word Into is important. That is why it is capitalized in every place but here. It should be capitalized because the MOS explicitly carves out 3 exceptions (importance, particle+phrasal, compound.) To not capitalize it is to ignore the MOS.10:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC) — Xkcdreader (talk • contribs) Comment: I've only seen what was on xkcd and glanced through most of this article, but it seems to me a lot of this discussion - whether it's a subtitle, whether into should be treated normally as a preposition, etc. - is irrelevant. The title on the official movie website states "Star Trek Into Darkness" - Capital I - and is an official source, as does the movie's page on the general Star Trek site. The Facebook/Twitter streams also (except where erroneously entered as "Star Trek: Into Darkness" which was confirmed by Abrams as incorrect, so that other move discussion with the colon is also irrelevant) display "Star Trek Into Darkness" as well as almost every other article and news story I've seen on the film. IMDB, Apple Trailers, and the "Memory Alpha" Star Trek wiki all use "Star Trek Into Darkness" as well. Wikipedia is the only source I've seen that has it as "Star Trek into Darkness" so it seems pretty odd to me that it should stay that way. ZephyronALPHA (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually...

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I hadn't noticed, and no one responded to my post about compromise language, but it seems as if another editor quite rightly added a (thankfully) streamlined version of the compromise I suggested. Both sides are represented, and we're accurate in terms of the real world. So ... we're actually done, right? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC) ...Annnnnd I guess I spoke too soon. C'mon, men of good will. Compromise is better than extremism. Nobody gets everything they want in a compromise, but everybody gets the most important thing they want. And the encyclopedia is the better for it. Despite our differences, isn't that what we all want? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC) I reverted the reversion with a note to see this Talk page. Everyone who argues that it’s not a subtitle and should thus be lowercase seems to be of the opinion that the capitalization is purely a matter of style. Since the article is currently treating it as an unbroken title, it makes sense to note the capitalization used by an abundance of sources. To those of the opinion that it’s a subtitle or otherwise not a matter of style: Get consensus first, or get a source that explicitly says it should be capitalized, but leave the proper title as “styled” in the meantime. —Frungi (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC) But it's not a style. A style is like the one I identified in the edit summary. Again it would be original research for us to say its a style when it conflicts with our style of writing and the officially released versions. I just think it's rediculous that we are still maintaining that its a style when every source out there has it identified as a subtitle and capitalises. But it is most certainly not a style but a grammatical choice. MisterShiney ✉ 01:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC) If it conflicts with our style of writing, then obviously it’s a style, or else it wouldn’t. And non-standard grammar is an element of style. Either it should be uppercase (which is my view, and yours I believe), or—as the current article title and content have it—it should be lowercase and is styled in uppercase. If you mean to say that insisting on having it lowercase is a case of original research, that’s another matter and one that we should address (and several have attempted to). —Frungi (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC) To be concise, what I’m saying is: Either we get it moved, or we call it styled. —Frungi (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Personally, I think the title is intentionally ambiguous—the better to keep the fanboys up at night—and it's working. So I doubt there will ever be a source that explicitly says what the capitalization should be. And there has been prior commentary by some on this topic that a statement from the producers may not be sufficient without an acknowledgement that "Into Darkness" is a subtitle. In the meantime, let's see if the "styled" compromise sticks. Jjuo (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC) I think there's no question the title is deliberately ambiguous ‐ oh, those creative types; what will they do next! — and with all respect to my good colleague MisterShiney ✉, one could make an argument for it being "styled" or "stylized" (either works for me) since in proper grammar it would either be lowercase i or have a colon. In any case, I think we have a viable compromise, and if each of us cringes a little but can live with it ... by God, now that's a compromise! &mnsp; : )   I think in the end we can all be a little proud of ourselves for meeting each other halfway. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Stylized or Stylised, I learnt long ago that for some strange reason Americans like to take letters away, replace an 'S' with a 'Z' for no apparent reason other than they then end up spelling/saying a word phonetically lol. But anyway. I strongly beleive that just because it conflicts with our way of doing things DOES NOT make it a style choice by other people. That's paramount to saying that our word is law on the English language and that we over rule anyone who see's differently. Just calling it how I see it. I for one don't like it having the line in it, because it's like we are questioning the intentions of the people releasing it and it is incorrect to identify it as a "style" when all they have done is changed a little grammar that is conversational to our MOS. But I will bite my tongue and leave it be. I can just see the headlines in a couple of months "JJ Clarifies title to satisfy Wikipedia Editors" MisterShiney ✉ 10:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Haha, you used "paramount" as a word in a sentence, not as a studio. I'm easy to amuse. Anyway, I agree that having the "styled as..." section is a good plan as a compromise. It seems that (according to my dictionary anyway), we're stylizing it, and Paramount have styled it (the two meaning slightly different things). Anyway, I don't want to get into semantics, just saying that I support the existence of "styled as..." for now. I was going to make another point, but I've completely forgotten what it was...drewmunn (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Remembered! It'd be quite interesting if we could put a hit counter on the holding page "Star Trek Into Darkness", and one on "Star Trek into Darkness", so we could see what percentage of hits came through the "Into" page. Just as an exercise if nothing else, it'd allow us to see how many people prefer "Into" over "into" in a very crude way. drewmunn (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC) MisterShiney: It’s more that our word is law on how we use the English language. Personally, I believe we should deviate from that as a common-sense exception if the whole of society deviates from it, as is the case here, but that sense does not appear to be common, so what can we do. Drew: I’d be willing to bet that a majority of searches would come through “star trek into darkness” because people are lazy with the shift key. —Frungi (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Interestingly, "star trek into darkness" redirects to "Star Trek Into Darkness", which redirects to "Star Trek into Darkness". :-s drewmunn (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Huh. I hadn’t tried before, but you’re right, a lowercase search takes you to the capital-I redirect. I wonder why. Maybe because it was created first? —Frungi (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In summary

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the hopes of helping myself—and others—better understand the “Into”/“into” debate from both sides, and ending the cycle of the same arguments and counterarguments once and for all even if the debate continues, I’ve put together a page summarizing it all. I hope I covered everything, but if not, please either let me know or add it yourself. I ask that before anyone on either side posts anything more on the subject here, you visit that page and read through the arguments and counterarguments from both sides with an open mind, and do your best to understand the stance you disagree with; or at least simply make sure that you’re bringing something new, rather than rehashing an old argument. Here’s the page: User:Frungi/Star Trek Into Darkness capitalization. —Frungi (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Love it. Especially the "Let me repeat it. Again" line. Fun Fact: Since the first archived debate of this topic, we've written enough dialog on the subject to produce a movie, at least an hour long, just about the letter "i". drewmunn (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC) If I direct, I want it on record that I will call it "Wikipedia: Editors Into Darkness". So as not to cause a debate behind my intentions regarding the capitalisation. ;) MisterShiney ✉ 11:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC) As "into" is a preposition, we'd style that here on Wikipedia as Wikipedia: Editors into Darkness, regardless of your intent! ;) --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC) I would sue for misnaming my works. MisterShiney ✉ 11:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC) You guys! C'mere ... give us a hug!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Have a hug. MisterShiney ✉ 20:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC) The movie would have to be called "I" not "i", no question about it. Electiontechnology (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC) It seems the new discussion of moving this page to an appropriately-capitalized "Into" page has been closed because this talk page attracted too much attention. I haven't been an active Wikipedia editor in years, but reading the xkcd this morning made me find my password, log on, and contribute to the discussion, which has now been locked. To close a discussion because it received too much attention seems to me to be about the most self-defeating option that could have come about. Instead of the same handful of people making decisions, you had a broad audience who came to this page and offered opinions, many of which were much more well-reasoned than what were included in the original discussion (which, yes, I did read before posting comments of my own). I don't think this is a healthy attitude, and I hope the discussion will be reopened soon to encourage -- rather than hinder -- the involvement of users who don't frequently contribute. Zeutheir (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC) No, no, it was closed because there was no sign of anyone changing their minds, and there were no new arguments being made. And it was right on the heels of a very similar RM. —Frungi (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Compromise"

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The proposed "compromise" of having "(styled as Star Trek Into Darkness)" is no good. First of all, it was only a proposal and not something we agreed to. Secondly, it is usually styled as two separate chunks with different sizes, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I personally support this compromise, though perhaps we can come up with a better word than "styled". We can revise down the road based on new evidence. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I support it. The readers expect it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Ditto. Makes perfect sense to me, ideal as a temporary solution until we can wrap this issue up for good. douts (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC) But it's wrong. It makes no logical sense and it isn't supported by reliable sources - it is just something we made up. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC) No, it's completely correct, and the way every source in the real world including the filmmakers themselves spell the title. And while spelling it with a lowercase i goes against reality, reasonable people have agreed to compromise for the sake of stability and peace. The vast majority of the editors here support the compromise, and no one editor has the right to veto it, so it's staying. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I support the compromise, and hope it gives everyone a good opportunity to find more important things to do. No one made anything up; that idea is absurd. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Scjessey, what's wrong about it? Is it the word "styled"? Is that that the posters/trailers use funny capitalisation. In September 2012, others speculated on the meaning of the title. I'm not sure if they were considered "reliable", but I think we need something to diffuse the astonishment that readers and drive by editors feel when they see the lowercase i. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC) There is ample evidence for “Star Trek Into Darkness”, and this is how WIkipedia handles names that differ from article titles in official or common use. It doesn’t matter if any of us disagree with it ideologically; it’s the style that is universally used, and the article should acknowledge that fact. If you really think it necessary, we can add (many) sources for it. —Frungi (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC) And if it’s the word “styled”, I don’t like it either, but I figured it was better than being snarky and saying “written by everyone else as”. =P —Frungi (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I agree with Scjessey here. It's incorrect. It's not stylised. If we are going to comment on the Style it would be "Stylised as STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS" what with it all being in capitals in all the released materials. We are just commenting on the grammar. MisterShiney ✉ 07:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I'm not going to involved to heavily in this, although I believe there should be something at least there. However, I'd just like to point out the difference between styled and stylised. The former would be correct in this case, as it means "design [...] in a particular way". The latter means "depict or treat in a [...] nonrealistic style", which is what we've done, rather than what they've done. As we're in minority when presenting it as 'into', we're stylising. drewmunn (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC) We're talking about writing style, not graphic presentation. Either they (i.e. everyone outside of Wikipedia) style it with a capital I in writing, or the capital I is the only correct way to write it. As there are still editors who disagree on the latter point, we do need to acknowledge the former. And again, grammar is an element of style. But I think "written" may be a more appropriate word, so I'll change that, unless anyone has a better choice. As for all-caps (again in writing, not in graphic representation), some sources do that any time they mention a title. That's a house rule, not a title-specific styling. —Frungi (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC) And let me say again that this is what we do when Wikipedia's titles differ from those in common use—either mention it as an alternate, or adopt the common title for the article title. The latter was attempted and failed (for now at least), so we go with the former. —Frungi (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I support either "usually stylised as" or "usually written as" Star Trek Into Darkness. Because it is. And we need to make some kind of acknowledgement of that in the article somewhere or, mark ye well, we will still be arguing about this a year from now. Something has to give. Nsign (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Please note that whatever is decided, "stylised"/"stylized" is incorrect usage. "Styled" is what is meant in this case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC) OK whatever. Nsign (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC) This is a stupid discussion. It can be one or the other, but not both. The title is "Star Trek Into Darkness", but Wikipedia writes it as "Star Trek into Darkness". It is Wikipedia that is styling the title, so the so-called compromise is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Calm, else someone may trout you. Wikipedia is stylising the title, but others use the official style. A mentioned above, there's a difference. That said, this shouldn't be a big issue. drewmunn (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC) And I don't think I could put the reason for compromise any better than Scjessey just did: "The title is 'Star Trek Into Darkness', but Wikipedia writes it as 'Star Trek into Darkness'" — a reasonable statement that acknowledges the title in the real world (which an encyclopedia clearly can't just ignore) and the title as given in an MOS (which like all MOSs are arbitrary since the world has no "official MOS"). We actually all agree what the title is in the real world. I don't think it's sensible or good policy for an encyclopedia to simply ignore the real world. Does any one of us, ultimately? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC) It is now fine the way it is. If this conversation continues within the next 3 months, I will personally trout that user! MisterShiney ✉ 17:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Hear Hear! drewmunn (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I came here after seeing the XKCD comic and haven't previously been involved in this discussion and, moreover, haven't been active on Wikipedia for years; perhaps that makes me something of a third-party viewpoint. My impression of the opening sentence (with this compromise) is that it comes across as sounding as if Wikipedia thinks itself the authority on how things should be named, and everybody else is wrong. I'm frankly astonished at this whole debate. Since official sources and most/all third-party sources all cite the title as "Star Trek Into Darkness", I think it's simple common sense that this is the title Wikipedia should use. If the various Wikipedia policies that I see people citing say otherwise, then those policies are frankly broken. With the article's title and opening sentence as they currently stand, I feel they make Wikipedia look foolish and arrogant. – Zawersh 16:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Well stated. Wikipedia Editors have been foolish, arrogant, and elitist for several years now. Thus my reason for no longer contributing to Wikipedia content -- it's not worth the hassle. In this case, the "compromise" is better than nothing, but is still silly. The page should be renamed to have "Into" since that is the official title. – Alchemistmatt (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Whilst you're entitled to your opinions, please don't insult other editors. We've put a massive amount of effort into making sure we keep the article in line with both reality, and the MoS. drewmunn talk 18:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC) That it took a massive amount of effort to decide whether to capitalize an "I" pretty much confirms what Alchemistmatt said. This is a good illustration of why I don't edit Wikipedia anymore either. Only, I'm not going to sign on for the first time in over 5 years just to say this. 68.170.182.205 (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC) still not as funny discussion as in case of Talk:Human_anus#Endless_image_contention 89.78.246.146 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

xkcd Mention

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just to make everyone aware, and for the sake of self-referential humor, there is now an xkcd comic poking fun at the whole discussion above and this talk page in general: http://xkcd.com/1167/ I move to debate the implications of this comic on the outcome of the page. :) 24.196.27.208 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I think you mean that it got an "Xkcd Mention". --70.64.172.216 (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I think you mean that it got an xkcd contempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.115.215 (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Oh dear heaven. What hath God wrought? 24.196.27.208 (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC) This is truly amazing, but what I would really like to see is for someone to get some actors together to do a dramatic reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.219.5 (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Good stuff guys! I wonder if any of the people in the debate truly understand how little anyone outside of their little discussion group gives a damn about the outcome?...or will ever notice which way it's done? If only this collossal amount of energy could somehow be diverted into something useful...like maybe collecting all of human knowledge and publishing it for the world to read? Oh well...it could be worse - check out the years of wrangling over "Sega Genesis" versus "Sega Mega Drive". SteveBaker (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The "Canada" vs "Dominion of Canada" was a pretty awful one too.96.49.132.52 (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC) It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to make the page semi-protected to deal with the huge influx of traffic that's sure to result from the xkcd mention. WiiWillieWiki 05:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Getting in before semi-protection kicks in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.54.79 (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Just to avoid confusion, from the xkcd FAQ: "The preferred form is "xkcd", all lower-case. In formal contexts where a lowercase word shouldn't start a sentence, "XKCD" is an okay alternative. "Xkcd" is frowned upon." ;) EvilHom3r (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC) This is an example of [synthesis]. It has never been clearly stated that these guidelines are applicable when followed by the word 'mention'. If we are to create a separate article for this mention it should follow Wikipedia's own guidelines, meaning the title of the page should clearly be "Xkcd Mention". 71.56.208.126 (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I, for one, think it should be ~*~XkCd MeNtI0n~*~. Mtijn (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC) In light of the comic, perhaps the perfect compromise is to move the talk page to Star Trek into Blinding Light.98.116.119.53 (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC) That won't do at all. If we move it, it should be moved to Star Trek lnto Blinding Light.76.102.193.27 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I have no personal opinion on the move itself, but can see the humor in the situation. If it is allowable, I will produce a dramatic adaptation of this article. Hopefully within a reasonable amount of time, I can get a line-through done will actors IRL. This is a big moment in Wikipedia history. It needs to live on.Mordvark (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC) It was also xkcd that made me aware of this discussion. And it shouldn't be "Xkcd" as said above, as the website clearly states "xkcd" all lower case. The title of something is what the creator titles it. The movie title is what the movie creators named it, which is clearly Star Trek Into Darkness. The rules for grammar simply do not apply in this situation. They are simply the suggested, standardized way to do things. It could be StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs if that is what the creators wanted to name it. Dragonfiremalus (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I swear though, I had to stop myself from capitalizing the "x" in the section title. I got the same feeling of discomfort beginning the a title with a lowercase letter that I'm sure everybody got when they saw a single preposition lower-cased in an otherwise all-uppercase title. I guess that means I'm in the "Support" camp. 24.196.27.208 (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Let's see if we can a 40,000 word discussion (read: argument) going over whether it should be xkcd, XKCD, or Xkcd. Dwees (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC) In case anyone comes from xkcd and wants to contribute, please first see this summary to quickly see what’s been discussed already. Thank you. —Frungi (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC) If xkcd can be all lowercase on Wikipedia, why can't "Into" be capitalized? 2605:6000:6481:2300:6D6B:460:ACFC:C25D (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC) See the arguments against it here. —Frungi (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I've read those. I'm just saying that if we are accepting the styling of xkcd's creator, why can't we accept the styling of the movie's creators. 2605:6000:6481:2300:6D6B:460:ACFC:C25D (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Oh dear heaven. You do realize now that they are just going to rename the page to "Xkcd," right? (http://xkcd.com/651/) -24.196.27.208 (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I'm surpised no one has noted yet that xkcd has the title as "Star Trek into Darkness" (108.214.97.159 talk) 09:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC) And there’s our reliable source. Darn. —Frungi (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Firstly, it's great to see other people reading xkcd. Secondly, it's great the article's been protected for now. Thirdly, let's all hunker down for the onslaught of vandals that will surely appear. Finally, I'd like to propose Frungi's summary page is linked to at the top of this talk page to help streamline unnecessary extra debate. Frungi, it may be worth you edit protecting your page for now (if you haven't already). drewmunn (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Heh, I honestly doubt that vandals coming here would pay any attention to it. But I will if necessary, and thanks for the suggestion. And I’m obviously somewhat biased, but I support linking it. —Frungi (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) If ever a talk page deserved to be vandalised, it is this one. Good grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.22.138 (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC) We all know Randall does this just to screw us over... Accelerometer T / C 07:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Any of you fine folks hear of this l'il thing called editor retention? Some mighty smart people, they're saying it's important or some such. Or maybe even a li'le thing. Are you seriously commenting on a spergy grammar talk page? Maybe they's even right about that. So let's say that they are... Instead of semi-protecting and vandalhunting everyone who comes by here with a shotgun... how about actually giving them a welcome message, telling 'em howdy, and ask 'em to help with some of the more important work goin' on. There'd be some mighty big smiles all round if all y'all could pull that off! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC) On the other hand, if the xkcd comic is accurate, why am I trying to get people to exhibit any kind of sane behaviour here? ;-) We're looking after the current article setup that's been agreed by consensus (or lack of) for the time being. We don't want to seem unwelcoming, but it's a sad fact that it was protected because vandalism of the subject had already begun. Hopefully things will ease off in the near future, and we'll have gained some useful and productive support from users who can bring a breath of fresh air to the page. drewmunn (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Ok, just to be sure I've got this right... I just said "this behaviour is net. harmful to wikipedia" , your reply (in short) is "this is the procedure, we're doing it this way anyway". And then you say "hopefully things will ease off later and we'll have gained some productive support"... from people who you'd just said should be blocked. I'm just checking here. Did I miss anything? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Oh wait, "we're looking at the current article setup that's been agreed by consensus" -> um WP:CCC wants a word with you. Sounds like fun! We could divert all the users that are going to come to actually improve the xkcd or the Star Trek articles, than join in here. On another note, I'm leaving Randal a note to look into the Burma/Myanmar controversy whenever he can. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC) That's the spirit! If it isn't fun, why else would we be wasting our time here? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Just to inform everyone, I have taken the matter to Jimbo Almighty here. With luck, he might be able to dictate a solution to decide consensus on such matters. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC) <old_geezer>I keep telling people that the point of CONsensus is to try to CONverge on a solution. Old fashioned, they call me. Too idealistic. HA... Get off my lawn!</old_geezer> :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC) This talk page is really a mess. Maybe you guys should use your energy to cure cancer or something. DoguCarrington (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Hmmm, I was sort of on that career path, twice. Wikipedia distracted me both times. (If you don't believe me, try to explain some of the odd entries in my block log O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC) And I am now tempted to read this stuff instead of doing my studies. I hope no one of you ever tries to learn German. Capitalization is slighty more complicated and people might get killed. DoguCarrington (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC) While not continuing research on solar cells, I'd like to take the time to point you to another discussion: H0 scale should be with the number 0, instead of the letter O. (http://xkcd.com/878/) 131.174.139.183 (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Hi Dogu, well, I don't think we would have such a debate in German... not about capitalization, at least. I have seen german wiki debates that reached a level of sophistication like this one, though. :D --Enyavar (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC) This comic should be mentioned in the article. It meets the criteria of at least 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Xkcd_in_popular_culture as the subject (this talk page) has acknowledged the comic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkcdreader (talk • contribs) Agreed Colt .55 (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Not to say it shouldn't be mentioned in there, but the article is not about its talk page. —Frungi (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC) No. The comic is a reference to Wikipedia, not to the film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think it should be mentioned in the article. As of yet, the article has been completely shielded from this debate, with only a hidden comment and a usually written as statement betraying the uproar back here. Unless other media outlets get hold of this, and a naming controversy grows from it, it's not notable to the article content. The subject (the talk page) has acknowledged the existence of the xkcd reference, and it's noted here. However, Randall is not discussing the article, nor have his actions had any effect on the film. drewmunn talk 11:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I don't see what it has to do with the film itself. If it's not really about the film, then it shouldn't be in the article. DillonLarson (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Agreed. This is only relevant to the article if you actually adopt the naming convention "StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs". Electiontechnology (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC) And Randall unfairly characterizes this as an "edit war". What's up with that? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC) It's his comic, he can do what he wants. If you like you can contribute to the strip's talk page. NE Ent 13:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC) It shouldn't be mentioned in the article, but there is room for an "In Pop Culture" section on this talk page... Marsman57 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC) ???? This is a talk page! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC) It's already mentioned on this talk page in the header section. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Imagine a world where all the effort that went into this talk were redistributed elsewhere. Society would advance so quickly. 90.245.2.198 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think so. Talking is far easier than anything productive. Locoluis (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I think this talk page needs a wikipedia article about this talk page. With an "in popular culture" section 99.226.191.43 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC) There's already an article for "notable" Wikipedia articles. See WP:LAME#Star Trek into Darkness :P 62.44.228.229 (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Guys. Not counting my comment, this section alone contains 1890 words about a comic about how many words there are in a debate about the capitalisation versus the non-capitalisation of the letter "i". I'm not sure if that's meta or just ridiculous. :P -- Chris (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC) No, not meta, just simple ridiculous. BTW, not interested in reading 100k of silliness- has anyone simply phoned up Paramount to ask if the "into" is capitalized? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC) That would be original research...HJED (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Wow, you nerds are at it again. You all have digressed back into exactly what Randall Munroe was making fun of in the first place. Congratulations on failing this hard. 65.129.52.158 (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Not bad: [10] :D --Gidoca (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Well, well... how exactly did Munroe find out about this page? 74.101.188.105 (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Guy who does not sign up for things Wow... you guys truly descended into an incredible self-parody here. Never watched the show but I always thought 'Trek' fans were intellectual and progressive. Obviously not. I won't be surprised if what you've done here becomes a popular urban legend.--131.111.248.243 (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{Requested move/dated|Star Trek: Into Darkness}} Star Trek into Darkness → Star Trek: Into Darkness – Facts: "Into Darkness" is a subtitle. It is not some sort of phrase meant to be interpreted in conjunction with "Star Trek". (Many good arguments have been made here, including "subtitles often appear below the title in a less prominent typeface or following the title after a colon" (Subtitle (titling)) and a dose of common sense.) Capitalizing the title as Star Trek into Darkness is ungrammatical and honestly one of the most egregious things I've ever seen. There is an established precedent: Star Trek Nemesis (notice the lack of colon) is another such film (in the same series!) with such an "open subtitle". However, it is treated here on Wikipedia as Star Trek: Nemesis (notice the colon). The most logical thing to do (assuming that we are not simply to use the correct title, which is Star Trek Into Darkness) is to follow the common sense in (1) and the Wikipedia precedent in (2) and rename this article Star Trek: Into Darkness (notice the colon and capitalization). DillonLarson (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Comment: Though I agree that it’s a subtitle and that this would be the most encyclopedic title, I’m not aware of a reliable source that says it’s a subtitle. —Frungi (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Also, unless something’s changed since the last time I searched, WP’s MOS is silent on the subject of subtitles. —Frungi (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I was confused about something for a moment. It is correct now. DillonLarson (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC) In 2009, J.J. Abrams "noted that if they make a sequel, 'it would have a subtitle instead of a number.'" (http://trekmovie.com/2009/06/04/report-from-mexico-city-star-trek-press-conference-w-pictures-video/) DillonLarson (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC) An article from 2012: "'Star Trek Into Darkness' teaser trailer lives up to its subtitle." (An article The Examiner (as evidence of popular opinion/convention): /article/star-trek-into-darkness-teaser-trailer-lives-up-to-its-subtitle) DillonLarson (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Images show the two ("Star Trek" and "Into Darkness") separated into two logical groups--a title and a subtitle. (http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/7306587/startrek_large_verge_medium_landscape.jpg) DillonLarson (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The first and third have been previously argued to be synthesis and interpretation. We need hard evidence, I think. Like that Examiner headline, but preferably on a site that isn’t blacklisted. —Frungi (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC) It is hard, I think, to find a great deal of evidence because I don't think a whole lot of "regular people" are having this debate--just my observation. I think the strongest piece of evidence is Wikipedia's treatment of Star Trek Nemesis as Star Trek: Nemesis. That tells me that this debate has probably already been solved by those who came before us. (And, more importantly, I think that that solution is the right one.) DillonLarson (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Agreed, but there’s also the argument (see here) that precedent doesn’t apply because the franchise was just rebooted. I think it’s still more likely than not to follow that precedent, but this argument has happened. —Frungi (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Please note that this film is not in the same series as Nemesis, as the franchise was rebooted with the last film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Same as my response below: the idea that a reboot constitutes a new series is an idea of your own creation and is not supported by any evidence I know of or by the present content and its organization here on Wikipedia. DillonLarson (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC) By titling the previous film simply Star Trek (without number or subtitle), any perceived precedents go out of the window. It's WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS to affirm that "into darkness" is a subtitle and should be preceded with a colon. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC) This "it's a new series, all precedent is invalid" position looks more like OR or SYNTH to me. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Exactly! DillonLarson (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC) If anything is WP:SYNTHESIS, I would have to say it is the idea that a reboot must be treated as a new series when the articles of this encyclopedia say otherwise. DillonLarson (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I'm not the one making the assumption, so there's no OR or synthesis on my part as I'm taking the title at its face value. But by assuming a subtitle, and assuming a colon, based on a supposed precedent, someone could be accused of this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC) What are you smoking, Rob? The film adheres to Star Trek canon as confirmed by Abrams, the writers and as evidenced by the inclusion of Spock Prime from the original timeline. It is NOT a reboot in the way that, say, Casino Royale, The Incredible Hulk or The Amazing Spider-Man are. Nsign (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Oooh... Incredible Hulk? Bad example to choose there, I think. I'd say that Incredible Hulk is the most similar to Star Trek however, as it's partial-reboot-partial-canon. drewmunn talk 10:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The point is that to assume a colon (especially when few sources use one) based on supposed precedent of films made prior to a reboot is WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC) There was no reboot - see below. Nsign (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose / Postpone. Nobody here wants to open this up again any time soon. Please thoroughly read the earlier move request, where your suggestion was discussed and declined. drewmunn (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I disagree that "opening this up again any time soon" is the wrong course of action. The point of this encyclopedia is not to fight (see WP:BATTLEGROUND); it is to be an accurate encyclopedia (see WP:FIVEPILLARS). In an effort to WP:BEBOLD and attempt to protect the integrity of this site, I have decided to gather sources and arguments and actually take a stance about this issue, right now. I suggest we all act accordingly. DillonLarson (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC) that is what we've been attempting for the last few months, but no side will give. There is no concrete evidence one way or another that can totally overrule evidence from the latter argument. The same statement (we're trying to protect Wikipedia's integrity) has been used to continue this debate long past anything that resembles useful conversation. The fact that this discussion is becoming more noticed by relatively mainstream media means that it's possible the studio will clear it up for us, but that's unlikely. Until, however, we have got some seriously killer evidence, we cannot fabricate a solution; especially as sources affiliated with the studio have explicitly said that it's one sentence. Overall, this is just a cyclic, non-progressive subject that will go on for eternity if we allow it to. We're not stunting Wikipedia's development by dropping it for a month or two, but we're saving considerable server space and protecting all of us from insanity. drewmunn (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I was inclined to gauge consensus on the (somewhat dramatic) change from lowercase-I-no-colon to capital-I-with-colon; that's why I even stepped in here. I feel like what we have is a strong enough argument at the present time, and I felt that actually putting it all together and moving it forward as a requested move was the proper action after everyone had a chance to "discuss" earlier. But, if everyone feels that this is too soon, I understand. DillonLarson (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I fully understand your frustration, we all want to get this resolved. However, it may be more effective if you think about letting it cool off for a bit before continuing this. We're in the middle of dealing with the fallout from the last move request, and only yesterday reached some form of compromise to tide us by. My personal suggestion would be to close this request for now, and I'm sure Frungi wouldn't mind adding your views to his summary (he's great at summarising) so we can come back to it when we've all had coffee and some time to relax. drewmunn (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I warned you all. I am a man of my convictions.... MisterShiney ✉ 07:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Support because it seems highly unlikely to me that it’s not intended as a subtitle. Though I’m also not sure we should be having another move discussion this soon, nor that there’s any more consensus than there was last time. Is there a rule about that? —Frungi (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC) there is a guidelines that says "Do not put more than one move request on the same article talk page", so I don't think this should be here at the moment... drewmunn (talk) 8:34 am, Today (UTC+0) I think that applies to active move discussions, that an article shouldn’t be RMed to two different titles at once. Not sure, though. But it probably would be best to wait at least until the last RM has been archived. —Frungi (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC) My thoughts exactly. In the meantime: "Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this madness" *leaps overboard*. drewmunn (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Strong Support I am not afraid of trout, and yes xkcd did bring this to my attention, and yes I have have read the talk page in its entirety. I see bits and pieces of this point covered here and there but nobody has just outright said it: every single title of every single Star Trek movie and TV series has been written in graphics with "Star Trek" on one line, no punctuation, and a subtitle on a separate line below, and all of them are written in Wikipedia as "Star Trek", a colon, and the subtitle in title case. And the only thing anyone on the opposing side has to offer against that is that in one place, the synopsis, the title is cleverly used as part of a sentence where "Star Trek" is a proper noun and "into darkness" is a prepositional phrase attached to the verb "taking" (which is not in the title), and that in such cases MoS would have "into" lowercase. This despite the director himself stating that the movie would have a subtitle with no colon (like every other Star Trek). I say turn the opposition's argument against them: let us uphold preexisting Wikipedia standards and not play into Paramount's clever marketing. Follow the convention used in every other Star Trek article, and disregard the silly marketing phrase "taking Star Trek into darkness".--Pfhorrest (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I agree completely. DillonLarson (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Strong Support Completely Agree with Pfhorrest. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 17:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Coming here from xkcd, I would just like to mention how much I loved your opening "Not to reopen the discussion" when you reopened the discussion above. --80.219.252.141 (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Given that J.J. Abrams purposely left out the colon, my guess is that he intended "into darkness" to have two meanings: a subtitle and the phrase "trek into darkness". However, given that "into darkness" is written in a different font than "star trek", and given that the full title "star trek into darkness" isn't a phrase, I say that the subtitle meaning should take priority, so MOS:CT doesn't apply. Support. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Support I think it's quite apparent that it is meant to be a subtitle and not a phrase (though J.J. Abrams did mean for people to think of "trek into darkness", even without compromising the fact that it is a subtitle). Otherwise, if it is meant to directly be a phrase, then this is no longer a Star Trek movie, but some other film called "Star Trek into Darkness". SilverserenC 08:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Postpone at least until the last move request has been archived. —Frungi (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Strong oppose. Talk about fanning the flames. Just as we'd kind of reached a compromise too. Has the nominator not read the previous and very recent move discussion? And the continued discussions thereafter? Far too soon to be starting this move discussion in the light of NO new information. It seems that a cartoon on a website will bring a new bunch of fanboys to the page who don't really understand Wikipedia guidelines. FFS. I'd suggest a speedy close as no consensus per WP:SNOW on this one. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC) In light of comments such as this, I think it wise that we all take a moment to remember the WP:FIVEPILLARS, of which one is WP:CIVILITY. I assure you, I have read the discussions and I acted in WP:GOODFAITH in requesting this move. I suggest you take a look at the previous discussions (and/or this excellent summary--User:Frungi/Star Trek Into Darkness capitalization); I think you will find that there was no consensus or compromise about "Star Trek into Darkness → Star Trek Into Darkness". However, I am not talking about "Star Trek into Darkness → Star Trek Into Darkness"; this is not a rehash of that debate (although that debate seems to have gotten severely out of hand and may have covered a bit of similar ground). This is about "Star Trek into Darkness → Star Trek: Into Darkness", which I (and others) believe to be right for this situation and for which I (and others) have attempted to demonstrate evidence, strong past precedence, and applicable rules of Wikipedia's style. And, despite your attempts to suppress this discussion, it has been going rather well and appears to be gaining support--though it is very young, so I don't see how either of us can claim an outcome at this point. (And, really, isn't that the point of a discussion?) I am fine if you disagree, but please don't make this into something it's not. Don't try to turn a discussion into a fight. DillonLarson (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The previous and very recent discussion also suggested the possibility of a colon, but this was also not seen as an acceptable compromise. To start a new discussion so soon after the recent lengthy discussions seems to smack of being WP:POINTY and disruptive, especially in the light of no new information, and given that we had just about reached a compromise and were putting the matter to bed. Why open up an old wound at this point? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I promise you that there was and is nothing WP:POINTY about my request. (Again, please try to be WP:CALM and assume WP:GOODFAITH.) I created this request specifically because I did not see "the matter begin put to bed." If there is an agreement to be made, is there any real reason not make it here? DillonLarson (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The reason not to have the discussion so soon is that we've just been having it for the last few months, and no consensus was found after all that time. If you'd have read these discussions through, I can't see how you could have thought it a good idea to "poke the bears" just as they were getting to sleep, and then seem surprised when they bite! --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Again, I cannot help but sense a great deal of WP:INCIVILITY in your comments. Attempting to terminate this discussion, to be frank, makes you appear WP:POINTY. Civil discussion is a really important part of Wikipedia, and I don't see why it cannot remain. DillonLarson (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I'd draw your attention to the fact that I'm not the only editor that thinks that opening this discussion again so soon was ill-advised. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC) You needn't draw my attention anywhere. I apologize if you disagree with the position of this request, but I see no merit in framing that disagreement as a reason to throw away this discussion. Like Ed said, why not "let the debate run its course"? DillonLarson (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Support. Perhaps this talk page could actually use some fresh input, because all the previous 'talk'-ers seem to have missed the point Pfhorrest makes: namely that Wikipedia already has a precedent for the current situation in the form of articles about previous Star Trek movies. All of these use colons and capitalization for the subtitle, even when in the promotional material the subtitle was only separated by a newline. So unless you want to start renaming articles like Star Trek: Nemesis to "Star Trek Nemesis", Star Trek: First Contact to "Star Trek First Contact" and so on, I suggest going with the suggested move. 87.212.129.14 (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC) There is no precedent as there are no previous Star Trek sequel movies in this series. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I reject the idea that there are two separate film series. Although the template at the bottom of Star Trek pages seems to suggest this, Star Trek and Star Trek (film series) (and my experience) say that there is only one series, which has been rebooted. I believe you are incorrect (according to these articles) and, furthermore, the precedent seems to be well founded. DillonLarson (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Something else to think about: Look at the infobox on Star Trek (the Films section). Doesn't the organization of the subtitles suggest a pattern? Into Darkness is listed there (with a capital I) along with all the other subtitles, which makes sense because it is a subtitle and should be formatted as such. DillonLarson (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC) My point being that you cannot claim a precedent, as this is the first sequel since the reboot. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Rob and Dillon. You are clearly both frustrated. Can you both step back and let the debate run its course? Preferably before either of you get too heated and say something you'll regret? Just some friendly advice. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you for those words, Ed. "Letting the debate run its course" is exactly what I believe should be allowed to happen. There's no reason we can't Keep Calm and Carry On. DillonLarson (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Even if you want to view this as a separate series, the point stands. The reason is that Wikipedia articles about other movies (i.e. also non-Star Trek) also follow the convention of replacing a newline by a colon (and a capitalization of the subtitle). 87.212.129.14 (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose, as per MOS:CT and the official lack of a colon. I also agree with Rob Sinden on the merit (or rather lack thereof), of having this discussion yet again. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Postpone / Oppose - we shouldn't insert a colon when there is no colon used by any official sources. Yes, I'm aware of Generations, Nemesis etc but in those cases it was very clear that the title was not a sentence/phrase. In this case we're not sure if it is or if it isn't. Personally I think the compromise that was recently reached will have to be adequate for now ("usually written as Star Trek Into Darkness") although I still resolutely believe it is simply illogical stubbornness not to change it to Star Trek Into Darkness. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia has its dick in the wind with this article. Rob Sinden - we absolutely can claim a precedent. 2009's Star Trek is not a reboot as it adheres to Trek canon. This has been clearly stated by the creators and is clear from the inclusion of Spock Prime from the original timeline. A reboot pretends all other previous iterations of a fictional world simply never happened (Casino Royale, The Amazing Spider-Man). This has got go-faster stripes but its undeniably part of the Star Trek film series. Nsign (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC) You seem to be contradicting yourself there. First you say it shouldn't be colon-ised, then you say there is precedent for colon-isation. I'm not about to get into a debate about whether the films exist in the same continuity, but we cannot treat the title in the same way as the films that came before the reboot, as the previous title of simply Star Trek broke the continuity of any naming system, and thus no precedent can be made. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Both are true - it shouldn't be colonised (my opinion) and there is precedent for colonisation (simply a fact). And there is no debate to be had about continuity at all - it IS the same one. And I disagree that to say that just because one single iteration of a franchise didn't use a subtitle chucks 40-odd years of precedent across 10 films and 5 series in the bin. Nsign (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I completely agree. If it were my call, I would capitalize with no colon, because that's the actual title of the film. But I also agree that the fact of Wikipedia's style precedent overrules that opinion. DillonLarson (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Again, WP:POINTY. You don't like the outcome of the "no consensus" discussion, so you make a suggestion that you don't agree with. It's hard to assume good faith. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC) You've misinterpreted that. He didn't make a suggestion he didn't agree with (and why would he?), he simply acknowledged that the MOS overrides his personal opinion. Nsign (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you :) DillonLarson (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think I have. He thinks the title should be with a capitalised "i", yet presents an argument for it to include a colon, a move that he has admitted not agreeing to. This is in the shadow of continued discussion that has been going on for months with no consensus. If that isn't disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what is. I may seek admin intervention. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Seriously? Can you hear what you are saying? Am I being WP:POINTY? No. Am I "frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied"? No. Have I "discredited a rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently"? No. Am I trying to "prove a point in a local dispute"? No. I have no dispute. If there is any dispute, it should be about the tactics that have been used to attempt to end this discussion before an outcome can be reached. Discussion is a very important part of Wikipedia. There is clearly "frustration with the way" discussion "is being applied," but that does not mean that you or anyone else has the authority to shut down this community and its efforts to voice its opinions about something. Look back at WP:POINTY and read the nutshell: "When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only." Why can't we just have a discussion? What is wrong with that? DillonLarson (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Go ahead. The meaning was clear. You are assuming bad faith when the statement was what it was - an acknowledgement that a Wikipedia policy took precedence over his own personal opinion. Nsign (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I promise you that there is nothing WP:POINTY about this request. I fully support this requested move. All I mean by my comment is that if this were DillonLarsonpedia, the style rules might be different. But this isn't DillonLarsonpedia; this is Wikipedia. My request is not an attempt to make a point or disrupt anything. It is, in fact, a real effort by me to make Wikipedia better. Isn't that our job as editors? Just because you disagree with how this should be handled does not mean you have the right to accuse me, repeatedly, of acting out of anything other than WP:GOODFAITH. DillonLarson (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC) "Star Trek broke the continuity of any naming system, and thus no precedent can be made." How is this not WP:OR? DillonLarson (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Did Star Trek follow the previously-in-place continuous naming system? No. Therefore no assumption can be made that a sequel to that film should follow this previous naming system. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I think the part where we don't see eye-to-eye lies in the fact that Star Trek was a dramatic change for the series--call it a "reboot" or whatever you please. This leads me to think of it as an outlier from what should be expected, not the beginning of something else--certainly not a new, separate series. If you think Star Trek was not a major change for the series, then I can understand why its name seems confusing. But if you agree that it was just an outlier--a necessary transition from the old actors, characters, and stories to new ones (while retaining several old ones)--then I don't see how you can maintain that it establishes a new precedent. Furthermore, I do not feel you adequately support the argument for this new precedent. Ultimately, I find this (only this specific bit) to be matter of opinion and any conclusion drawn from it WP:OR. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. DillonLarson (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Whilst I agree that there is precedent, there is no evidence that Abrams will utilise that precedent; it's a new era, and we're yet to see whether precedent is worth anything. Precedent doesn't mean time immemorial, and a franchise refresh doesn't mean a reboot. As I've suggested before, and others agree, look into putting this move request on hold for now. Over the last few hours, we've covered only old ground, with the exception of lengthening a new debate that isn't going far in reaching any consensus. Let the bear sleep, and he may wake up more open minded and rational (on both sides). drewmunn talk 11:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC) You've put in better words what I was trying to convey. And agreed, this discussion should not have been revisited just yet. I think WP:SNOW applies here - If recent history is anything to go by, there is no way we will find a consensus just yet. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC) It doesn't matter whether it did or not. It is part of the Star Trek series and we can look to the whole series for precedent. No one should be referring to Star Trek (2009) as a "reboot" because it simply isn't and it isn't described as one on its own wikipedia entry or by the creators. The entry for "reboot" states, "In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all established continuity in a series and start over from the beginning". Trek 2009 by any measure does not meet that definition. Batman Begins - reboot. Casino Royale - reboot. Amazing Spider Man - reboot. Star Trek - not reboot. Nsign (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Well technically, we don't know whether "Star Trek Nemesis" isn't a phrase. Like, the Nemesis of the (Star) Trek or something? On the official site of the Nemesis film they don't use a colon... The Wikipedia page does insert a colon. Should we change that? 131.211.45.47 (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC) No. Its been done there because it makes sense to do it as it is obviously a subtitle. Here it isn't obvious. Let's not start farting around with other articles on the basis of guidelines under discussion here, that leads us to WP:POINTY. Nsign (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I didn't mean it should actually be changed; my question was rhetoric. I do disagree with you though, in that I think it's obviously a subtitle, just from the film poster for example. 131.211.45.47 (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose because it invents a colon that doesn't exist. Perhaps the nominating editor should be strapped to a table and carved open with a phaser so we can use his colon. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Is this really acceptable here? DillonLarson (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Please see WP:No Personal Attacks. There is no mention of phaser use. Therefore yes, perfectly acceptable. Nsign (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Being opened up by a phaser is functionally-equivalent to a trouting for Star Trek fans. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Wrong—no one's "inventing" a colon. That's a straw man. We're discussing inserting a colon between what's put forth as a series title and subtitle (and more broadly, whether this is the case), as is appropriate in such circumstances. Our MOS says nothing either for or against such an addition. —Frungi (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC) No, we are talking about conjuring up a colon out of thin air because some editors think "into darkness" is a subtitle. I see "Star Trek into Darkness" as a single, undivided title (as do others). It is precisely why "into" should be lowercase. It is the crux of this entire debate, in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC) You mean undivided as in: "In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC) (The capitalisation of "i" was per their MOS, not ours btw ;)) --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Exactly so. The official synopsis is the best evidence that "Star Trek into Darkness" is meant to be read as an unbroken title. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Support Star Trek: Into Darkness per everything I already said. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Support - I can't even believe you guys are having this conversation. Are you really trying to say that "Into Darkness" isn't a subtitle? That it is part of a sentence? The fact that this requires the opening sentence of the article to say (normally written as . . . ) shows you exactly the problem there - no one writes it as a sentence becayse it makes no sense as a sentence. FOARP (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Paramount incorporated the title into a sentence in the official synopsis for the movie, so the basis of your argument doesn't exist. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Ummm, again, from the official synopsis: "In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness" --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Comment: I find this new request to move to be extremely premature. If there was a consensus for Star Trek: Into Darkness, it would have arisen in the last request to move. There was no consensus all around. We were just winding down and accepting a modification of the lead sentence until new evidence would have us review the issue. Nor do I think that it was a good move for DillonLarson (talk · contribs) to kick off a new RM without ever commenting on this talk page before. I've filed a WP:ANI notice about getting this discussion closed speedily. The notice can be seen here. Notice was moved to WP:AN here. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I don't understand why it's such a problem to simply discuss something. What could be wrong with that? 131.211.45.47 (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, it seems somewhat precious of previous editors to act as if their discussion was the be-all-and-end-all on this subject. This debate has just been exposed to a much larger number of people who are all likely to have views on it - mostly, shall I add, supporting this move and thinking that anyone who thinks that the title should be written as a meaningless sentence needs their head examined FOARP (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC) It's not us being precious, it's us seeing the same arguments, the same evidence, and the same cyclic discussions beginning again when they've only just finished. It was (mostly) agreed that'd we'd reached a compromise for the time being, and that we wouldn't bring it back up unless there was some new evidence that proved either way categorically. As of yet, no evidence exists. If you haven't already, I suggest you read the preserved review above, the followup conversation, and Frungi's summary. Before all of those discussions, there are 3 whole archives, the majority of which is made up of this same debate. It's not that we're being parochial, it's that we've analysed every single shred of evidence to death over countless hundreds of hours, and thousands of words. We don't feel that there is any chance that we'll reach consensus by continuing this any further at this time. There is clear evidence provided by official parties that point to it being one sentence, and clear evidence that it's a subtitle. Until such a time as we have clear cut evidence that it's one way or another, and officially denying the other way, this conversation is not going to go anywhere. drewmunn talk 14:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC) It would appear that maybe because of the coverage this page has received, non-regular and new editors are being attracted to this discussion. I know it isn't WP:CANVASSING, but it seems to have had a similar effect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Support - This is a silly conversation, but even as such, I do agree that "Into Darkness" is plainly, obviously, and even citedly a subtitle. Wikipedia convention for Star Trek movie subtitles is to use a colon, regardless of whether a colon is used officially. Fieari (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Support - I don't see anything that suggests "Into Darkness" isn't a subtitle, while there are quite a few reasons to believe it is. King Klear (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Ummm, again, from the official synopsis: "In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC) So? 131.211.45.47 (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC) No subtitle, and it reads as a sentence. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The fact that even the official synopsis, where the title is used as a sentence, uses upper-case I shows that Into Darkness is a subtitle. If it was not, there would be no reason for the capitalization. On the contrary, if they meant the four words to be a complete title without a subtitle, they would have shown that with a lower-case "into". King Klear (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC) If anyone took the time to read the previous discussions, they would see that this is what we've been discussing for months. However, you contradict yourself in your comment by claiming that it is both a sentence and a subtitle. This is both the crux of the problem, and the reason we cannot form a consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I have read through the discussion, as well through the very useful summaries, otherwise I wouldn't dare intrude here. In any case I'm not contradicting myself. I maintain that the title (Star Trek) and subtitle (Into Darkness) are used in a sentence in the official synopsis. Please note that the way the synopsis is worded, "Star Trek into Darkness" doesn't mean the same thing as "taking Star Trek into Darkness", the later refering to Abrams and the direction the franchise is taking. King Klear (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Yes but why does the fact that what you quoted is a sentence imply that the title should be read as one? 131.211.45.47 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Because that's how the sentence is structured!!! "...to take Star Trek into darkness". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry but you have to make the link between that sentence on the one hand, and the title on the other, stronger. The fact that a marketeer makes a pun does not automatically imply anything for the name of the product. Note (on the side) that there's a subtle difference in the subject of the texts (synopsis vs. movie title). The synopsis is about the movie and its franchise, whereas the title is (supposedly) about the story content. I.e. the movie title is the title of the story, whereas the synopsis discusses the tone and outlines the story: it's a story about a story. If the title of the movie was really meant to be read and interpreted as "taking Star Trek into darkness", I would expect a movie about how they made Star Trek darker or something similar. Sort of a 'making of'. 131.211.45.47 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Drew's comment below covers it quite well. And by your same argument, to suggest that it is a subtitle is also an interpretation, and therefore WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Therefore, for now, we can do nothing but to take it at face value. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Completely agree with the user above who said "the fact that a marketeer makes a pun does not automatically imply anything for the name of the product". As Frungi points out below, that synopsis can be read as using Star Trek as the franchise title and into darkness as a phrase. So not intended as a complete title, just a marketing pun. Nsign (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC) But there are other reasons to think it is a subtitle, namely the capitalization in all official sources, the Abrams interview and the way the title is written in the trailer, teaser, and poster. I don't recall seeing any good evidence that it isn't a subtitle. King Klear (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The sentence reads as taking "Star Trek", and moving it "Into Darkness", so it's "Star Trek Into Darkness". If you find it easier, replace "Star Trek" with "Drew", and "Darkness" with "McDonalds". Now, it reads "Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Drew Into McDonalds". It proves neither that it's a subtitle (in this case, the title would simply be Drew, which I, even being called Drew, don't think is a good title), nor that it's definitely one sentence (although I believe it is). It's simply the choice of the studio in styling their title. We style it differently, but it doesn't make their styling wrong, or force it to imply the existence of a subtitle. drewmunn talk 14:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, so the movie "Drew Into McDonalds" would then be about how Drew went into the McDonalds. By analogy, "Star Trek (i|I)nto Darkness" would then be about how the franchise Star Trek was taken into darkness. Which it isn't: it's about how Kirk saves the universe. I agree that the sentence in the synopsis doesn't imply anything either way. Therefore, I think the current title "Star Trek into Darkness" is the one that is assuming things: the movie poster, teaser and previous Star Trek movies all imply that "Into Darkness" should be a subtitle, and there is no reason to assume otherwise. 131.211.45.47 (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Btw I couldn't help in my mind replacing "Drew" by "Poland" and "McDonalds" by "Space" :p 131.211.45.47 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC) As demonstrated, by at least 3-4 editors, there is reason to think otherwise. This is why we can find no consensus, and why, at this time, we should not be taking the title to be anything other than its face value. By assuming it is a subtitle, one would be guilty of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The real issue here, as several users have pointed out, is actually the MOS (and the inflexible rigidity with which users insist on adhering to it). By taking the title at face value with no colon we assume a sentence (we don't know for sure, but we assume and there's a fair bit of OR coming from that side). By wikipedias own house rules, "into" then becomes lower case. Which in this case is unsatisfactory because we end up with a title rendering that no one else, anywhere, is using, and leaves the article looking glaringly inconsistent with real world usage. We will never resolve this here until an agreement is reached on changing the MOS. Or until there is an agreement to make an exception to the guideline. Which really should have happened ages ago. Nsign (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Ok, so other than the synopsis sentence (which I don't view as particularly convincing either way), what do we know? There's the fact that on the website it's repeatedly referred to as "Star Trek Into Darkness", but then again, so is "Star Trek Nemesis" etc., which is interpreted as "Star Trek: Nemesis" no problem, so apparently we cannot conclude anything from the absence of a colon there either. What are we left with? Teaser? Poster? Both seem to support the subtitle hypothesis. Am I forgetting anything? 131.211.45.47 (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC) There's reams of discussion back and forth about this in the previous move request, let's not rehash it. It comes down to the MOS. Without consensus, which basically won't be reached because of obdurate inflexibility, this goes nowhere. Nsign (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose A good encyclopedia should always reflect the facts as best as possible. The facts in this case is that there is no colon in the title. A check of Paramount's official website bears this out. Paramount owns that copyright for Star Trek and they can title their movie what they want. Who are we to change the title of a property owned by someone else? While style guidelines are needed for when there is a question or uncertainty, in this case there is none. Rather the goal should be to reflect the facts and reality as best as possible and not to enforce some arbitray style guidelines. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Nobody is proposing that the title has a colon in it. The proposal is that the title is "Star Trek" and that "Into Darkness" is a subtitle, in which case proper Wikipedia style is to separate the two titles with a colon when presenting them on a single line. That said, I agree that Paramount's webpage is interesting evidence. "Star Trek Into Darkness" appears alongside films such as "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" and "Anchorman: The Legend Continues", suggesting that Paramount does not regard "Into Darkness" as a subtitle. It also appears alongside "World War Z", where "Z" is presented in a different font from "World War" and yet is clearly not a subtitle, undermining the "'Into Darkness' is in a different font from 'Star Trek' and therefore is a separate title" argument. —98.223.35.240 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Support. It's clearly a subtitle, and WP:MOSTM makes clear that we are not slavishly beholden to the idiosyncratic style choices of production houses. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Strong Support. I read the previous discussion thoroughly, and it did not adequately address the precedent set by other Star Trek films, of which the current series is a reboot. This page should be formatted in the same style as other Star Trek films. Also, the decision to decapitalize the "I," as it is capitalized in marketing, is done only in strict adherence to a general rule that defies common sense in the present instance. It is not too early to have a continued discussion because new information is being discussed that should change the consensus, and there -- to me -- really does not appear to be a valid argument in opposition. Zeutheir (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The previous discussion did address the precedent set at some length. There are acres of text devoted to it. The "current series" is also not a reboot. Nsign (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Support It's a subtitle sure enough, and the nominator has argued this convincingly. Where it's being used differently, that's a stylization that we can safely ignore per MOS:CT. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Er, we should probably try winding this down now: http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/01/star-trek-nerds-in-epic-online-battle-over-correct-word-capitalisation/ Nsign (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Heh, he's out of date though, we're no longer talking about "Star Trek into Darkness" vs. "Star Trek Into Darkness" but about "Star Trek into Darkness" vs. "Star Trek: Into Darkness". Biiiig difference ;) 131.211.45.47 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Well, the possibility of the colon was also discussed in the recent move discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Comment. Facepalm. Does it really matter that much guys? Srsrox (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Support/Comment. From MOS:CT we have "every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words" -- I agree the cases specifically listed suggest "into" should not be capitalized, but thats missing the spirit of the rule, which is to capitalize important words, which "into" blatantly is, by simple virtue of the fact that we're even discussing it. In order to make capitalizing into make sense, the colon should be inserted. The comment part is that I think the length of this discussion merits considering an update to WP:MOS to handle cases like this explicitly and consistently. Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Smash! You've been squished by a whale! Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly. To you all!!! Why does it matter???? Leave it be!!! MisterShiney ✉ 16:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Well, mostly because of this: http://xkcd.com/386/ King Klear (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I don't care. Brining up another move request when a temporary solution had been achieved is foolish and makes us look even more like idiots as it has reopened the box. MisterShiney ✉ 17:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC) So are you suggesting we apply WP:STEAM to this one? Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC) No, we're suggesting people give our solution a chance. Just because xkcd has written a witty comment about a debate doesn't mean it wasn't resolved. We have come to a compromise in the last few days, and would ask that it's given time to flourish. We're not stifling your opinions, just pointing out that we've gone through them all five times over. There has been nothing new today that hasn't already been analysed, argued over, counter-argued, and put to bed for the time being. Please, just give it a few months to clear the baggage, and hopefully allow more solid evidence to be made available. drewmunn talk 17:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC) For the record, whales and steamrollers are both heavy things that can squish other things, so I thought it was a joke explicitly intended to reference WP:STEAM. Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC) On another note, MisterShiney, I left you a message. Do you mind chipping in? drewmunn talk 17:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Couldn't have said it better myself. It's just bad practice to effectively re open a closed discussion. Yes I saw that and did. MisterShiney ✉ 17:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Hey, wait a minute, that's the wrong movie! I think you meant to drop this whale on Talk:Star Trek for the Voyage Home. Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Strong Support Robert computer engineer (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Support The current 'compromise' is ridiculous. Dtaylor1984 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Having read the nomination rationale, I'm thoroughly unconvinced. Do reliable sources include a colon explicitly? No. Hence we fallback on our MOS guidelines, which support the current title. All those couldas-wouldas-shouldas and "they surely mean that..."s are just a waste of everyone's time. Assuming this is watched by a bunch of Star Trek fans, did you know that the overwhelming majority of entries in the list of Star Trek novels (to take a random list) are plain pathetic? Why not improve them instead of debating the finer points of subtitling?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 30, 2013; 19:03 (UTC) 1st Requested Move Should Already be Achived This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 20 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus after 29 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Last move request should have been archived on the 29th. All posts in the second move request saying 'we should postpone til archived' are invaild. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 18:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I really don't have time to "get into" this dicussion and go back and forth with a million responses, but I have two comments: 1. To me the posters clearly indicate "Into Darkness" is a subtitle whether it makes gramatical sense or not, and more importantly 2. Why is it that Apple gets to choose how you capitalize its product and Wikipedia jumps to support iPod by creating a whole system to allow first-letter-lowercase characters? But when the studio and every source on earth calls the film "Star Trek Into Darkness", we call back to manual of style? Is it because iPod is a product and Star Trek Into Darkness is a literary work? That seems unfair, and not consistant with other artistic works like iTunes Live from SoHo. Whether or not it is a subtitle, it just seems improper for 'into' to be lowercase given that is how the producers and the rest of the world have determined the title to be styled. Perhaps it is because there is no verb in the phrase "Star Trek Into Darkness" because Star Trek is generally seen as a noun. I read "Into" more as a verb as if "Into" represents "goes into" or "comes into" or whatnot. Those are my two cents. TheHYPO (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Negative. It is 20 days after the last post. Otherwise still active discussions will be archived which serves no purpose other than to disrupt the process. MisterShiney ✉ 18:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy closed as not-moved (I can't remember the right template; if you know what it is, please use it). This discussion is getting lots of coverage on outside websites, and per people's concerns in the "Star Trek into Darkness" section of the current version of WP:AN, it needs to be speedy closed. Do not treat this as an endorsement of either side, and feel free to reopen it before long; please don't think of this as an attempt to stifle or put off discussion. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here…

Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars#Star Trek (I|i)nto Darkness —Jesse B. Hannah (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And this too http://xkcd.com/1167/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.169.79 (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

*nod*, see under #xkcd_Mention We might be able to ask for a CC-BY-SA license for that comic :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's already CC-BY-NC, so I don't know whether he'd change it just for us! drewmunn (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

He can and has done so for other comics in the past. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I wonder if he has an account so we can trout him. I wonder if he's been part of this conversation. He could have infiltrated our ranks! Trust nobody! Suspect everybody! drewmunn (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Especially not User:Xkcd! ;) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Incidentally seems to be only mildly active. Might be wise to use wikipedia email

Now, don't be logical. I've been driven slightly mad by the past months of debate, and it totally slipped my mind that his account could be called xkcd. Now, back to more pressing matters; I have an episode of Utopia to watch. That'll make me more sane. drewmunn (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC) you know too much about xkcd. My logically conspiratorial mind has decided you must be a sock puppet of Randall himself! Mwhahahahaha!

Shouldn’t that be User:xkcd? Just sayin’… —Frungi (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. "The preferred form is "xkcd", all lower-case. In formal contexts where a lowercase word shouldn't start a sentence, "XKCD" is an okay alternative. "Xkcd" is frowned upon. "" 98.247.64.244 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Star Trek Into Darkness". I commented that it should be this when they announced the title but mostly everyone said no against it and that it should just be 'into' instead of 'Into'.

Wish I was here when it got changed into "Into" and seen what everyone who disagreed with me then said. Oh well... Charlr6 (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Skydance Productions

http://skydance.com/movie/9/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness.html

One of the official production companies that worked on the film lists it on their site with title-case. A quick search showed that this information was not presented in the past arguments, so here it is.

To quote: "In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.192.161 (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That is taken from the official synopsis, which has been discussed in detail above. drewmunn talk 11:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The title case in other sources is irrelevant, as they may be following their house style, and we follow ours. However, it does show "into" as a preposition, which is one of the argumenents considered (at length) above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Except it's capitalized everywhere, regardless of house style. And I maintain the synopsis grammar is irrelevant; it uses "Star Trek" as a franchise title and "into darkness" as words, and it falls to the same argument that discounts official sources' use of the capital I. —Frungi (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Drive by comment. Article in UK newspaper The Independent includes this: "With just weeks to live, the film buff, who is from New York, wanted nothing more than to see Abrams’ hotly anticipated Star Trek sequel Into Darkness, which is not due out in the US until mid-May." To my simple mind, this looks like a great source to support the "subtitle theory".141.0.46.202 (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Except that the author of that article also refers to the film as "Star Trek Into Darkness" and wrongly refers to "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" as "The Hobbit". Credibility fail. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If I were to write 'Star Trek', I'd be talking about an entirely different movie. I feel 'The Hobbit' doesn't require that clarification, since there's just one 'The Hobbit' so far. Doesn't imply anything about his credibility. Shashwat986 → talk 13:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose A good encyclopedia should always reflect the facts as best as possible. The facts in this case is that there is no colon in the title. A check of Paramount's official website bears this out. Paramount owns that copyright for Star Trek and they can title their movie what they want. Who are we to change the title of a property owned by someone else? While style guidelines are needed for when there is a question or uncertainty, in this case there is none. Rather the goal should be to reflect the facts and reality as best as possible and not to enforce some arbitray style guidelines. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• What other people use to term the film is of no consequence to us; we're an encyclopaedia, and don't base our layout simply on one or two journalists. The conversations above cover the large amount of effort that we've gone to trying to prove/disprove the subtitle styling, and no consensus has been reached. We've spent a long time trying to get this right, and no new evidence has come to light that proves either way since our compromise. The titular article of this section has been discussed in detail previously, and similar situations as the the second example quoted here have also been debated. If you haven't already, I ask you to read through the preserved move request, the post-closing discussion, and Frungi's summary. You may also find the archived debates of interest; there are 3 archives, with the majority of their content discussing this matter. Once reading through all of that material, you'll probably see why there are those of us who'd prefer it if you'd leave this for a month or so before bringing it up again. drewmunn talk 15:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• If it's not a subtitle to the main title, then why, at the end of the trailers, is "INTO DARKNESS" displayed first, in large text, and then "STAR TREK" fades into view above it, in smaller text? That seems to strongly indicate that it's a subtitle, not one large continuous title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.33.26 (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

See above, I am not getting back into this. We've gone over all of this before, and it's considered WP:OR to cite that as an indications of a subtitle. drewmunn talk 17:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting back Into this. §A — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottauld (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

bringing to your attention another discussion concerning the matter of capitalizing certain prepositions in titles

(I know it has been brought up before, but since the sudden influx of posts is certain to drown out that information hidden in a wall of text, I'm hereby taking the liberty of creating a new section to re-post the notification.)
For a broader discussion of capitalization that also involves into / Into and whose outcome will affect the styling of this title as well, please see this. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh no! What have you done? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean I opened a door I shouldn't have opened? I don't think too many people who are not interested in this issue on a more fundamental level are ready to read through the huge discussion at WT:MoS. But then again, I might be wrong. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh my word! My head is going to explode!!!!! MisterShiney ✉ 16:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, fellow editors

It would appear that ripples over the incredibly pathetic and protracted conflict about capitalizing a single preposition has led elsewhere, mocking your ridonkulous behavior. Perhaps it is time to sort of cogently shut up for a bit and wait the actual film to come out? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to assume you haven't read the content of this talk page to have missed the discussion already taking place (and has been for nearly a day) about this very subject. Also, would you mind turning down your insults? We're working to resolve an issue, and we reached a compromise within the last few days. The xkcd comic has flared up an issue that we were letting lay; the majority of editors who were contributing to the debate prior to today decided to leave it for a good month or more, and that was going well until the deluge of new opinions from xkcd readers. We all try to remain civil, and respect each other's opinions on Wikipedia, so it'd be appreciated if you didn't insult the hard work we have put into making this article more effective. drewmunn talk 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The XKCD posting is already discussed above (in collapsed sections). It has exacerbated the issue, which had actually cooled down beforehand to await new evidence before reviewing. The editor who started a new RM had not edited since last November. I've made a request at WP:AN to speedy close the RM discussion. Perhaps the XKCD posting will lead to outside commentary that can conclude this issue. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Taken from startrekmovie.com --- "The anticipated Star Trek movie sequel: Star Trek Into Darkness. Watch the new Star Trek videos here! In theaters May 17, 2013." (Scroll to the very bottom in fine print. If you copy and paste it, you get 'I' not 'i').

Yes because that is an equally mature response from an editor who has had no contribution (that I can see) to this discussion and who is quite frankly here to disrupt and antagonise the process. I would ask that you re read Wikipedia Policies and guidelineseither make a constructive input or henceforth depart and try not to let the door hit you on the way out. MisterShiney ✉ 20:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not. helping. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course people have missed the discussion already taken place. After all, the sections are collapsed. Might I suggest that collapsing discussions-in-progress is probably a bad idea?

That said, this is a famous repeating pattern.

• If this section were to become collapsed... no one sees it.
• So the next person to come by creates a new one...
• ... which becomes collapsed so no one sees it...
• ...so a new section is created... which is collapsed...
• ...so no one sees it. so .... etc etc.

If we have a lot of bad luck there will also be some random deletions/reversions of comments, at which point people are forced to meatball:ExpandScope, and things snowball, and you'll start learning of the great wiki-edit war of 2013 in the press. ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC) So Don't Do That(tm). Don't collapse, don't delete, and don't be snarky at newcomers

Matching article content with current title

If we aren't currently treating "Into Darkness" as a subtitle, we shouldn't call it it that in the article.

Current text in the article: "J. J. Abrams has stated that unlike the original series' Trek films, this film will have a subtitle with no number following the series title Star Trek, like The Next Generation's film series."

I propose we remove this section for now; it only generates confusion. (Yes, I found this from xkcd) Robert computer engineer (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We're listing encyclopaedic content, which the section above quoted is. Just because he stated it, doesn't mean it's true; Abrams said that a long time ago, and things could have changed. However, we document that he said it in the first place. drewmunn talk 17:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because he stated it at one point, doesn't mean we should include it in the article. Especially if we don't think it's true anymore. I don't see any added value in keeping that sentence there, and it makes Wikipedia internally inconstant. Since the current consensus is to leave it as not a subtitle, we shouldn't be implying that it is a subtitle in the article Robert computer engineer (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the reason it's still there is that we're not sure whether or not we can say "it's definitely not/is a subtitle", so it's there for people to draw their own opinions from. drewmunn talk 18:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't that type of discussion be here on the talk page? An Encyclopedia shouldn't be a "We report, you decide" thing that gives conflicting information in the main article. If anyone is interested in the controversy they can come to the talk page. When we revisit this page a month from now if we decide it is a subtitle we can put that back up, and if we decide it isn't, we can leave it removed. Robert computer engineer (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's just another NPOV issue: we do need to report and let readers decide. Obviously we have to pick one of them for the article title, but if both ": Into" and "into" are getting used in relevant sources, it might be helpful to include a short section on the name of the film. Regardless of that, the text should generally use the same capitalisation/punctuation as the article title. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend, I get the feeling that you aren't really talking about what I'm talking about here. I'm not complaining about the current compromise situation with the title. We think it's unclear whether or not it's a subtitle, so since there's no consensus, we aren't changing it, but we mention both capitalizations. I don't think ": Into" or "into" are being used in any relevant sources, I believe it's all "Into", but that has nothing to do with what we're discussing in this section. Robert computer engineer (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right; I misunderstood you. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Some grammar clarifications

Several of the arguments on this page make extensive use of grammatical arguments, and much of the grammatical terminology used is either fuzzy or flat-out incorrect. I'm not going to directly address the, um, controversy above, but I want to do a little bit to clarify the grammar of the situation so as to inform further discussion and make sure people aren't talking past each other.

1. First of all, under any construal, "star trek into darkness" is not a "sentence"; the debate is over whether it is two separate phrases (as argued by those supporting the "subtitle" interpretation) or one single noun phrase. As a single noun phrase, it would have the same structure as something like "road trip through wilderness". There is no dispute that the first two words are themselves a noun phrase (under either interpretation) and the last two are a prepositional phrase (under either interpretation); the question at hand is whether the prepositional phrase actually modifies the noun phrase to form a larger noun phrase, or if it remains separate.
2. Under no interpretation is "trek" (or any of the other words) a verb here; although it can be one in general ("he trekked across the prairie"), in the four-word title in question, "trek" could only be a verb if its subject is "star", which is singular, and thus the required verb form would be "treks". Furthermore, that would imply that it is the stars that are trekking (traveling), but I don't think there's any dispute that the meaning here is that it's the ship's crew that is doing the trekking (through the stars). The non-proper phrase "star trek" is a noun phrase composed of two nouns, in the same way as "road trip" or for that matter "ham sandwich".
3. The word "into" is also not a verb. Even if it were part of a phrasal verb construction (which it isn't here, see previous item), it would be a preposition that is either part of or complement to the verb, depending on your preferred linguistic theory. I think that what the "into is a verb" people are trying to argue is that "into darkness" attaches directly to "trek" even before "star" makes it into the mix, but that argument does not require changing the parts of speech of the words in it.

I think the linguistic arguments are sort of a sidebar to the main debate, but if people are going to keep using them it'd be good to use the right terminology so we all know what we're talking about. /blahedo (t) 19:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say towards the end of 3., however, I think you're wrong on 2., as the title could be interpreted as a sloppily punctuated imperative, becoming clear when a hyphen and an exclamation mark are added: "Star-trek into darkness!", in the sense of "go star-trekking", "go road-tripping", "go duck-hunting", whatever.

Now, do I think that's what's meant by the person[s] behind it all? No, but technically, it could be. Personally, I consider it likely they wanted to imply "a trek/journey/trip into sth." (a "single noun phrase", as you call it), the issue still being of whether or not to capitalize "into". If you know of a manual of style that does (along with, say, "over", "than", "till", "upon"), but which at the same time lowercases "from" and "with", let us know here – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, true, it could theoretically be an imperative, but that's not the situation the "trek is a verb" contingent was arguing. My comments at the end of 3 are basically that you could make an argument that "trek into darkness" is a phrase, which is then modified by "star", without claiming that "into" is a verb. "Into" is not a verb. I am avoiding making any specific comment about the capitalisation question in this section because I do not want to muddy the grammatical terminology point. /blahedo (t) 01:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Into is a preposition. Trek Into is a verb phrase. Trek Into Darkness is a noun phrase. Star is an adjective. Star Trek Into Darkness is a noun phrase. QED. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that 'trek' cannot be properly understood as a verb in the imperative mood with 'star' as the subject because, if it were, 'star' would be vocative and thus properly require a comma. 'Trek' can still be imperative if and only if the sentence is using the implied subject 'you' and 'star' is adverbial. However, 'trek' could still be properly understood as a verb with 'star' as its subject if 'trek' is in the subjunctive rather than imperative mood. An argument for 'trek' as a verb must, in my opinion, be based on the subjunctive mood. Of course, I think it's clear 'trek' is actually a noun, I'm just pointing out that it could be a verb and still leave the title grammatically correct. Chimon (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

For those reading this, this argument is incorrect. The author assumes star is the subject. a Trek Into Darkness can be its own noun phrase similar to a Trip Into Wilderness. Star becomes an adjective to describe the TYPE of trek, similar to how road is an adjective modifying the noun phrase Trip Into Wilderness. Hope that helps Xkcdreader (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

New article: Wikipedia's talk page for the article "Star Trek Into Darkness"

New article: Wikipedia's talk page for the article "Star Trek Into Darkness" Wstidtp (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don’t think it merits its own article, and isn’t there a policy against self-referential articles? —Frungi (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been speedily deleted (wrongly in my view). It's also referenced in http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-star-trek-into-darkness-capitalization/ Wstidtp (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that the debate could be mentioned in the film article. However, the debate is not notable enough for its own article. It's straightforward to summarize and fold the debate in the film article if there is consensus to do so. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SUBJECT — "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves (even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself)." We don't have an article Wikipedia's "Elephant" article, even though an incident related to the elephant article has gotten far more coverage than this. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I was just going to bring up the now-userfied Elephant (wikipedia article) (note incorrect capitalization) and my sandboxed Elephant (wikipedia article) (Wikipedia article) (correctly capitalized, because the incorrect capitalization is part of the name of the prior article) about the preceding. cmadler (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We do have an article on Wikipedia, however, and in the community or history section, it might be appropriate to put:

On January 2013, Wikipedia lost its Goddamn collective mind, debating whether its suggestions regarding grammar mattered more than its rules advocating using common sense and ignoring rules when they simply do not match up with reality.(ref)http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-star-trek-into-darkness-capitalization/ "Wikipedians wage war over a capital "I" in a "Star Trek" film" By Kevin Morris, Daily Dot, 30 January 2013(/ref)

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this really a reliable source? If so, it would be a good thing to include over there, as just another example of the phenomenon that has seen us become the only significant publisher of content that uses dashes instead of hyphens. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Daily Dot has editorial oversight, the usual standard for whether something's really a newspaper and not just a collaborative blog. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Another newspaper reference: Trekkies take on Wikis in a grammatical tizzy over Star Trek Into Darkness http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/trekkies-take-on-wikis-in-a-grammatical-tizzy-over-star-trek-into-darkness-8475705.html Wstidtp (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There you go, that's even a real newspaper. WP:N and WP:RS established. So now can we have a 2013 Star Trek Into Darkness Wikipedia controversy article, please? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Summary of the i / I discussion

I've tried to read though the huge amount written on i VS I but can't seem to find the crux of the argument for and against. I'm wondering if someone could summarize it, as it has now become an issue on to itself.

If I understand it right, the i people support i because the rules of Wikipedia, as reflected in the manual of style, demand it. The I people support I because the official title, as reflected in promotional material, demand it.

Am I incorrect? Or is this a basic summary? Nickjbor (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

See #Summary of arguments, also reported here. Frungi, you're famous! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A summary may be found here. In short, you are correct, though I'm wondering what ever happened to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:IAR, and WP:COMMONSENSE. If the guidelines on capitalization are law, then so are those. Is it not enough that the studio wrote the name some way that we can write without any sort of special coding? Honestly, this make us look the people Vogons make fun for being overly bureaucratic to the point that it disrupts this site's operation. This is not Berlin for the grammar Nazis, this is an encyclopedia. But no, we have to come to a compromise that makes us look a bunch of idiots arguing over every bureaucratic little thing to look like we're smart and have meaningful lives, because we have lost our our damn minds. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, writing a lower-case "into" here is really hard to interpret as anything other than neurotic rule-following taken to the point of self-parody. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

NB: this has gone far beyond the point of self-parody. - Dravecky (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that debating for 6 weeks whether the letter i should be capitalized or not is a sign of some kind of psychological problem. But they were able to get themselves in an xkcd cartoon so perhaps that says something. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.179.21.226 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You know what they say: If you're crazy enough, you'll become famous enough to become eccentric. 71.203.170.181 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And we've gone public: xkcd Leejoe Schar (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As an outsider who has skimmed (but, sorry, not understood every nuance of) the whole protracted debate, I get the impression that it boils down to this:

• Argument in favor of "Into": it's the way it's usually written -- by the director, the producers, the studio, imdb, and every other website except Wikipedia.
• Argument in favor of "into": it's what our reading of WP:MOS says the Wikipedia article title absolutely must be, the movie's actual title and the rest of the world be damned. We're tired of arguing about it, we're super stubborn so we're not going to change it, we came up with this excellent compromise (wherein we admit right there in the lead sentence that "Into" is how the rest of the world usually writes it), and we're really annoyed that Randall Munroe sent a bunch of newcomers over here to stir things up.

I'm sure I'll get roundly flamed for badly misrepresenting one or both arguments, but again, that's how it looks to this outsider who didn't have the benefit of living through the forty thousand words of debate in real time. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why you should be flamed, that was an accurate representation of the arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I still find myself quite unbelieving that anyone would rather capitalise the title in such a way as to make the logical acronym STD. Surely that would be something to move away from? 82.0.149.167 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Why are we annoyed at getting newcomers sent our way? We have an editor retention problem. How about we show those newcomers our best smiles and welcome them. :-)

Also, if the MOS is so stupid as to force us to mis-write a movie title, then the MOS is wrong, and should be changed, obviously. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is a third line of thinking: If Wikipedia's manual of style's capitalization rules were to be changed, both – the however-official press material and Wikipedia's guidelines – would advocate "Into". HOWEVER, for that to happen, there first would have to be found a corresponding authoritative guideline, which you then could present and propose over here (if you go there, please first familiarize yourself with the topic and read carefully what's already been written, so as not to repeat stuff that's been asked and stated several times over). Then it's for the community to decide whether or not to adopt those alternative rules. Personally, I don't mind "into", as it's just "in" and "to" put together (two words that are lowercased in quite every style guide when written individually), but find some other titles weird when styled according to the current capitalization prescriptions (all explained in the linked discussion). BUT this is not about my idiosyncracies nor yours, nor is it about a single film title (at least it isn't if you don't either reject the notion of a house style wholesale or believe that it must be subordinate to other guides or policies). Instead, a consensus solution based on reliable sources should be sought. NB: That means the outcome could also be that after all is said and done the capitalization rules don't change at all. So if you have something to contribute – a fresh perspective, specialist knowledge, access to not yet examined sources – chime in over at WT:MoS. Don't bother if you're not willing to put the necessary time, thought and energy into it. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No, actually, "in to" according to WP:MOS should be capitalized as "In to" as it is a compound (first word of a compound preposition is capitalized). The same thing is true if we have a «PropNoun into Noun» structure as the preposition requires a verb (even if it is not written, therefore an "implied verb" exists) in which case "into" usually becomes part of a phrasal verb (such as "takes into" "goes into" "treks into"). This is because "into" is a directional spatial adposition. This means that it can only be combined with verbs of motion. Thus according to current WP:MOS, must be capitalized (all prepositions of phrase verbs are capitalized). So assuming "Star Trek Into Darkness" is all one phrase, all grammatical deconstructions of that phrase, according to WP:MOS, must have "into" capitalized as "Into." — al-Shimoni (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Capitalization: Official Website and Publications

After reading most of the long and heated debate about the issue of capitalizing "into" and the debate as to if "Into Darkness" constitutes a subtitle or not, I decided to find official publications from the parent company, affiliates and those associated with the film in order to verify the title. After all, what is official should be represented as such in this encyclopedia. However, I do know that this conflict exists elsewhere in the world of entertainment and has been tackled in this encyclopedia. Such conflict is evident in Next to Normal which is often stylized as "next to normal" for artistic and promotional purposes. However a quick search of Next to Normal will show that in most cases, as is on the site for the official production, the words "Next" and "Normal" are capitalized when not in a stylized format. This is also how it is billed with the licensing company, MTI. When the title "Star Trek Into Darkness" was confirmed by Entertainment Weekly, they reported the lack of a colon (although acknowledging that it is implied) and also capitalized "Into" as it was confirmed to them by their sources involved with the film. As such, the official website, as seen in the title and info of its webpage, has also chosen to capitalize the word "Into" in the title. This represents not a stylization of the title, but how the title is officially structured, much like Next to Normal.

As mentioned earlier, the colon in the title is implied, but, unlike the word "Into", it has been removed for stylization purposes. As Mr. Vary states in his article for entertainment weekly, "The moniker further differentiates Abrams’ reboot of the venerable sci-fi franchise from the earlier Trek movies, which either went the roman-numeral-and-subtitle route... or eschewed the number for just a colon-ized subtitle." The use of "colon-ized" is recognition that "Into Darkness" is, in fact, a subtitle. However, this subtitle is not "colon-ized" like Star Trek movies of the past. That colon has been removed for stylization. Since "Into Darkness" is indeed a subtitle, the word "Into" should be capitalized as such. Elpato22 (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

When we quote something, we do not alter the quote. How are we not quoting the title when we use it? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that when we use the title we are quoting the title. Therefore, considering what I have stated above, as the title is "Star Trek Into Darkness" (Implied colon, capital "I"), the title must be formatted as such if we are to quote it correctly. Elpato22 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We're not quoting the title directly, we're writing a documentation of it. The debate (in RM form) has been closed by admin now, as it was decided that continuing this would get us nowhere at the moment. drewmunn talk 21:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Except that new debate can (and should) be sparked, because we're doing a shitty job of documenting how it's actually spelled, and new debate is being inspired by the rest of the internet pointing out the sheer bureaucratic stupidity of the supposed "compromise" that amounts to "This is what we're gonna call it, even though it's really spelled this way." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Complete outsider comment: the current title, with no cap I for 'into', looks stupid.

I used to edit Wikipedia a hell of a lot (100,000+ edits) but, I gave up - due to these types of ridiculous argument.

Still, at least I got a laugh out of this one, via xkcd. 88.104.7.119 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone hear this talk page was featured on xkcd?? ;-) I'm another user who doesn't edit much anymore because of this kind of silliness. I'm glad you have reached a compromise solution, but it seems like a compromise for talk page editors' sake rather than for readers' sake: I think the readers will be scratching their heads as to why we aren't writing it as it's usually written. Fletcher (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about "compromise for talk page editors' sake". Unfortunately, Wikipedia being what it is today, and WP:IAR notwithstanding, sometimes Wikipedia has to have the wrong version. Fortunately, in this case, the effect is likely to be temporary; after things cool down a bit (perhaps in as little as 24 hours) I expect that a proper move to the obviously-correct title will be made. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother reading the above discussion; the outcome is so obviously wrong that anyone who agrees with it ought to be ashamed of themselves and needs to step back and reconsider their participation in this project. First, our own precedents don't support this; see Straight Outta Lynwood and the contentious discussion in 2007 about that title (cf [11] for a taste). If following the MOS requires an absurd, unsupportable outcome (short version: if the MOS is an ass) then we ignore it and do the right thing. We, as in the project, look like idiots. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Apart from Straight Outta Lynwood, other conflicting precedents of note with 4-letter prepositions include Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Bullets Over Broadway, Reign Over Me, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, It Came Upon the Midnight Clear, Once Upon a Time, Once Upon a Time in America, The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane, and The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorencollins (talk • contribs) 17:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unto?

Another suggestion I might add would be to rename it to "Star Trek Unto Darkness". That should end all debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoorayForZo1dberg (talk • contribs) 23:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. No offence, but that is a ridiculous idea cos it would completely change the meaning of the title. douts (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous idea? No offence, but this whole discussion is ridiculous! HoorayForZo1dberg (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And before that XKCD comic strip attracted a load of a drive-by editors who were too damn lazy to read the discussion we had reached a sensible compromise and agreed to leave this be for a few months or until some new evidence either way could be found. douts (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence for the uppercase I, there is no evidence (only bureaucratic application of guidelines in sheer denial of reality) for the lowercase i. Consensus can change. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware consensus can change, and I know there's evidence supporting a cap-I. I'm in favour of the move myself, but things need to be left for a while to allow everyone to calm down a bit (ideally a week, bare minimum) before another move request is initiated. And besides, consensus isn't likely to change unless some new argument that hasn't already been discussed above crops up. So it's best for everyone involved to leave it be for a while. douts (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This has gone on for months. In all that time, no real evidence for the lowercase i has come up. It is well past time for a change. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't just go with the obvious, common-sense title: Star Trek Reboot 2: Antimatter Boogaloo. I'll go ahead and move the page. (WP:BOLD!) -- Narsil (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to redefine "lazy". "too damn lazy to read the discussion" or perhaps got better things to do than read over 9000 words of nonsense. I think "Unto" is more worthy of discussion. Antimatter Boogaloo is also a nice alternative.HoorayForZo1dberg (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unto and Into are 2 completely words with completely different meanings. The title of the film is Star Trek Into Darkness, NOT Star Trek Unto Darkness. douts (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Douts, it's obvious that he's joking. Ryan Vesey 00:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. If you're redefining lazy, then there should be no problem with substituting "into" with "unto". Besides, they're not completely different; in fact, they're 75% the same! HoorayForZo1dberg (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with slight modification. I think we should change it to Star Wars Unto Darkness. I personally like Star Wars better, and I don't think it's hard to see why we should prefer this. Even George Takei started out acting for Star Trek and later decided to switch to voice acting for Star Wars, which should tell you something. -- 173.105.255.47 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I LOL'D I honestly got a pretty good kick out of this. It sums up everything this thread has been through. Basically, "Screw it, let's just rename the movie." Elpato22 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Usually written as..." >> "also written as"

At the risk of getting flamed from both sides, I changed "Usually written as..." to "also written as" in the opening sentence. "Usually" smacks of WP:OR and we don't need a verify dispute in the opening line. I'm neutral on the dispute apart from this. Manning (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The only place it is written with a lowercase i is in this article. "Always written as" would be more appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it should be "always, except on Wikipedia because we're dumb like that" or perhaps just "always" if the former is pointy. I'm on the verge of eliminating this farce and having this article match reality. If the MOS requires a contrary outcome then it's wrong and should be changed after we've fixed on obvious problem in mainspace. Style guides exist to serve articles and not the reverse. Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer Mackensen's proposal, but I'd be willing to settle with usually. I've done a search and haven't pulled up any other source that uses the lower case. Ryan Vesey 01:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Manning, in a normal situation I'd call your edit an acceptable bold one; however, you made the edit through protection (I'm not sure if you were aware). As such, consensus should be sought first. Can you undo your edit until you can achieve consensus? Ryan Vesey 01:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There cannot be consensus to change reality. Clearly, and I hope I'll be forgiven for saying so, this high-profile article was given over to editors who fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of the project and believed that we were creating a Manual of Style. They were then enabled by an administrator whom I otherwise respect who had the opportunity to end the madness and took the weak way out. The project has now been brought into severe disrepute. To quote Golbez, this is why we can't have nice things. Manning's edit should stand. Mackensen (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm thoroughly confused by your response to me. Having just previously argued that "always" was appropriate, you state that an edit for which he cannot achieve consensus, and that he made through protection, should stand. Is one of us misunderstanding something? Ryan Vesey 01:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No, I don't think so. I'm saying that the present state of the article is so obviously unacceptable and disreputable that editing through protection is an acceptable. Yes, yes, I'm aware of m:Wrong version. What we've got here is a situation wherein a horrible, bureaucratic argument devoid of any common sense was allowed to persist beyond any usefulness and is now causing active harm. Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
        • The entire point of full protection is the existence of a content dispute. Administrators are handed the tools because the community has deemed them worthy of judging the outcome of discussions. Administrators are not allowed to make any edit they want to a fully protected article. This wasn't a minor edit, this didn't deal with any pressing concerns such as copyvio, this edit changed the meaning of the sentence. What confuses me most about your argument is that you seem to disagree with his edit, yet you support his ability to make it. Ryan Vesey 01:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
          • His edit was a good start, but we can do better. Further, administrators can and do blow it. Happens all the time. We don't sacrifice articles on the altar of process. What's called for here is a moment of clarity, not more bureaucracy. Mackensen (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

            In defense of process: there's nothing wrong with process, per-se. But process is like a chainsaw. You can't just go around waving it blindly! Process is a powerful tool. Use it responsibly. You have to use the right process, you use it in the right way, hold it firm and steady, and keep an eye on it in case it kicks, blows up, or tries to eviscerate you. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed all the weaselly nonsense from the intro. If someone wants to produce a source that says anyone OTHER THAN A SMALL CABAL OF WIKIPEDIA EDITORS thinks the title is rendered with a lowercase "i" then we can change it. Seriously people, this is the worst thing I've seen in years. I won't move the article, yet, because that makes a mess and this talk page is active, but it should move as soon as possible. Mackensen (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Note to Ryan - Nope, sorry, I missed that the page was under admin-only protection (I saw the pink banner but didn't read closely enough, assumed it was run-of-the-mill PP). Apologies to all for my unintended abuse of admin rights. Manning (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Has it already been proposed that MOS:CT deserves an update?

I haven't heard any arguments for "into" that don't boil down to "because the manual of style says so". But the manual of style is only a house rule, and the reason there is no universally-accepted rule in English for this is because of all the situations like this in which absolute rules strongly clash with common sense. (Alternatively, this also seems like exactly the sort of situation that Ignore all rules was made for.) 142.1.229.55 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

All we need is a clear statement that WP:COMMONNAME takes preference over anything else. Ryan Vesey 01:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggested above that the MOS be fixed after the article was, in case there was still confusion about which is more important. Also, this is totally what IAR is for. Mackensen (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#COMMONNAME should take precedence. It's a small change, and only resolves part of what is probably a much bigger problem, but it solves this problem specifically. Ryan Vesey 01:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Since we have quickly learned that COMMONNAME in fact already had precedence, that was a short discussion. O:-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Ok, So. Now that we have established that the current title violates policy ... well, let's wait and see if anyone finds a mistake in the reasoning for a minute at least ;-)

Frankly, it's an open secret that the MOS isn't even a consensus document. It's the worst example extant in Wikipedia of centralized documents being used to push policy in a top-down fashion rather than documenting what's arisen organically, and it shouldn't ever be held to override any legitimate, practice-derived policy or guideline. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The worst part of the "because the manual of style says so" argument is that it is flat out wrong. The manual of style SAYS to CAPITALIZE COMPOUND PREPOSITIONS. Into is a compound preposition. Thus the rules state it should be capitalized. The only people arguing for lower case are those that are incorrectly reading the manual of style.Xkcdreader (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

---

I do no think that a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#COMMONNAME should take precedence is appropriate. That section was created to advertise (and ongoing) RfC on whether the MOS rules should have precedence over other (see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal -- more input for other editors to help create a consensus are of course welcome)

The relevant link in this case is WP:LOWERCASE which like WP:COMMONNAME is part of the AT policy page, so the appropriate discussions forum for changes to guidance over this issue should be addressed to Wikipedia talk:Article titles. -- PBS (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That section directs you to the guideline WP:NCCAPS for more guidance on capitalization of proper nouns. Said guidance was a good chunk of the arguments against this article’s current title. —Frungi (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey: Lookie Here:

Use Common Sense! It will have occasional exceptions! It's all there right at the tippy-top of the style manual. There are some real concrete thinkers on here. Whew. WHat about DGAF and all those other things. People, to quote William Shatner: "Get a life!" No hazmats (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

@Frungi you wrote "Said guidance was a good chunk of the arguments against this article’s current title", yes it does, as does the article titles policy page. But that is not germane to the point I was making. The point I was making was that this is not an issue where in the first instance guidance should be sought from MOS, the place to look for guidance is in the article titles policy and its naming conventions (guidelines). It is widely agreed that naming conventions can supplement and enhanced the policy page but they can not contradict it (if they do then that guidance should be placed to one side in favour of what the policy says). -- PBS (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (again)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Snow closing this as endorsing the page move, because the supports are coming down faster than the foot of snow I got last night, and there is a clear consensus to keep the title at its current name. Can we move past this ridiculous chapter in our history now? While the media coverage of this is rather entertaining, it's not exactly beneficial to our image as an encyclopedia. Let's all go work on a couple articles (my nomination: Argentine–Chilean naval arms race) and do something that matters. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Due to previous issues with the WP:RM process, the current process in use at this location is WP:BRD. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek into Darkness → Star Trek Into Darkness – The title with the uppercased i is unambiguously the common name for this movie.  Ryan Vesey 02:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Due respect to you as a person but I don't respect the RM procedure (unless something changed, they weren't required by policy before). Even if I did respect RM, we've had 2 here already in recent history, one blew up spectacularly (quelle surprise) and one was speedy closed. Can we hold off 24 hours or not run this particular process at all? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

---

• I think it should be moved first, and then a requested move done in the other direction. That aside, it hasn't be moved yet, and moving it would be an acceptable edit in the context of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Failing all these sensible outcomes, support. Mackensen (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Mackensen's proposed course of action would also be acceptable. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, on further thought. I'm stripping the RM tag. 7 days till closure? That's against WP:COMMON sense in this case. We're not going to do another RM here. I'm just not entirely ready to move the page myself. I don't have time to read through the reasoning to see if there's some babies in with the bathwater I should know about. If anyone else does have time, do please give it a whirl! --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

An RM technically goes for 7 days, but many have been closed early when consensus seemed obvious. Ryan Vesey 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've repeatedly threatened to execute this move so I've now done so. I believe this is in keeping with the BRD cycle and the page is not currently protected. I will not engage in any edit-warring over the matter. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Noting that this proposal at Talk:Star_Trek_into_Darkness/Archive_1#Requested_move_.28again.29 had consensus on 18 September 2011 before an unexpected interjection of MOS cries derailed it and Elen closed on the basis of an out-of-process and too short parallel proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wait just a damn minute, please - We had a move discussion and there was no consensus for a move to take place. Anyone deciding to move the article without first establishing a consensus to do so is making a grave mistake. I have strong objections to the way certain editors have behaved in the last few hours. One thing that concerns me is that Kim Bruning changed MOS:CT and then started talking about renaming this article to match the change. That's not appropriate behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  Almost. The applicable Policy is at WP:COMMONNAME. My slight alteration updated the MoS page with my understanding. This should famous last words be fairly uncontroversial. See also the relevant talk page. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Do I have to bring up RED? RAP (talk) 13:32 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that an acronym? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel it may be relevant. We're talking about how things are written. We're talking the practice of titles with undercase lettering, yet films like RED are fullcaps. Just saying, apples and oranges. RAP (talk) 15:25 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Vehement support move and protection. Situation was just inutterably stupid. Best WP:IAR ever. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - That this move has taken place without first establishing a consensus (per policy) is a disgrace. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  There was at least a consensus on the fact that our non-capitalization was unique in the media and supported solely by our own MOS. Also, WP:BURO/WP:IAR. —Frungi (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  The disgrace is that it took WP:BOLD administrative action to implement the simplest of common sense. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  (ec2*) Ha! I helped write that policy. Currently this page is kind of world-infamous because it couldn't converge on a consensus on a single letter. So we're applying a different procedure to see if that'll work instead. Feel free to revert&contact Mackensen if you disagree with the move, as per WP:BRD, :-) (but expect to have some work at it, afterwards) :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, Scjessey. The disgrace is that this argument lasted for so long, Reddit and The Daily Dot have brought it up, making us all look so stupid. The disgrace is that this argument lasted 2 months. RAP (talk) 5:35 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I've restored the official move request despite the fact that the article has already been moved. If another admin happens to move it back, the discussion will still be ongoing. If it is not, we can at least show that consensus was achieved after the fact. There's a number here who think that completely disregarding process is okay because a long discussion never reached consensus and they are certain in the correctness of their statements. I believe the same things as they do; however, disregarding process creates a mess and I want no part in it. Ryan Vesey 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think that following process means what you think it means. One thing it doesn't mean is to actually MAKE a mess, thanks.

  People need to use processes and policies as tools in an intelligent manner. Something which has quite evidently not been done here. (else folks like Mackensen and myself wouldn't have to come around and fix it. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC) A process is a tool for people. People are not a tool for process :-P

• Comment. Just so it's clear, I support my own move and believe it ought to be uncontroversial to use WP:COMMONNAME for an article title. That's a policy. It's been a policy for ages. Claims that the MOS trumps it are wrong-headed and there was never any consensus that the MOS did so. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  Nobody said anything about MOS:CT trumping WP:COMMONNAME. Our contention was that "Into Darkness" was not a subtitle and was, therefore, subject to the longstanding MOS:CT guidelines on prepositions. There are DOZENS of compositions with articles on Wikipedia that follow exactly the same guideline, but you have allowed a CARTOON dictate that an exception be made, ignoring the existing consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• All the cartoon did was inform people of the dispute. I for one had no idea this discussion was taking place. The cartoon didn't offer a legitimate suggestion as to what the title should be. Ryan Vesey 03:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mackensen hasn't done anything of the sort, of course. :-). My recommendation is to read up on the current process in use, and act as you deem appropriate.:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't act as appropriate because after moving the page against consensus, the problem was compounded with the additional abuse of an unnecessary page protection. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Expires in 24 hours though. That said, if you want, we can pretend you reverted if you like (though it's not mandatory to revert before opening a discussion section) , and you can open a discussion section below with your reasoning for the revert (definitely mandatory, if you want to pursue this at least :-) ). --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Question to Scjessey. Are those other articles named inconsistently with standard use? Do they use a spelling, capitalization, punctuation, etc. that no reliable source uses? —Frungi (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  It's not really something I should be expanding upon on this talk page. Let's just say that MOS:CT has existed more or less in the same form for ages, so literally hundreds of composition titles (not just movies, but music, scholarly pamphlets, etc.) have had the guideline applied to them. It's been like that for years. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  You seem to be avoiding the question—does that guideline conflict with WP:COMMONNAME in any of those examples, as was the case here with “into Darkness”? Because it’s kinda seeming like you’re objecting just to object. —Frungi (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  I am not avoiding it. I just think this isn't the right place to discuss it. I think MOS:CT absolutely can conflict with WP:COMMONNAME (although a recent undiscussed edit changes that for future articles), and as such it has left a legacy where hundreds of articles are now probably mistitled. This debate has been very useful for the wider debate going on at MOS:CT about what to do with prepositions in composition titles. It is a shame that the bigger problem could not have been fully resolved before resolving the matter here. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• I Love You. I would like to hereby proclaim my undying love for Mackensen for doing the right thing, editing the page, and moving it to fit the appropriate title. I commend the user for also backing it up with sound logic and reason proving the edit to be correct, as the majority has known all along. Hopefully this made-up controversy will die out sometime soon. Elpato22 (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Good move. To those who are objecting, concerned that this came too soon after the previous two move requests and without any new information to change the argument, there was something new: a bunch of fresh eyeballs, who came to a different consensus. And to those who are concerned that this amounted to "canvassing", let me point out that, although many of the fresh eyeballs are surely here solely due to the xkcd comic, that comic did not lobby either for "Into" or "into". The influx of new eyeballs did not come predisposed for one conclusion or the other, just for finding the right one. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Report the movie title as wrong to Google when you search for it and Wikipedia comes up on the right, https://www.google.com/search?q=Star+Trek+Into+Darkness Click on "Feedback" at the bottom of the Wikipedia section and click the title as "Wrong".

• Page moving in the face of a contested RM moves this into WP:WHEEL space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't. With who or what am I wheel-warring? What did I revert? WP:RM is a process which doesn't even have policy status. If you're right then every deletion process that gets escalated to a speedy would be wheel-warring. Please explain further or withdraw the accusation. Best, Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not quite. You do have to let people at least take a crack at it under WP:BRD, or else we're really smoked, right? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC) And if you have enough reasons under BRD to rv, you can go ahead and give it a shot. ps. RM is not a policy.

• I didn't say there is a violation already. Just that closing contested RMs is an administrator role, and that the ante is now raised. BRD needs care. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BRD is bold, revert, discuss. The move was bold, it should be reverted, and now discussed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

In BRD, reversion of good faith edits is the negative hurdle to be overcome, not a required part of the process.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly a good faith edit, it's an incredibly controversial one, as the wealth of discussion above can attest to. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A controversial edit (if that) can still be made in good faith.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC) ps. accusing people of acting in bad faith never ends well. Would you consider withdrawing that part of your statement, or qualifying it as 'may at times appear to be bad faith' or etc. ? :-)

• Comment - User:xkcd did not advocate one "into" or "Into" in his comic (Jan 30), but rather commented on it, admins did not use his comic to dictate an action. However, his comment did bring the debate to a broader number of admins, and those admins have pointed out the WP policy that seems to have been missed in this long discussion (a policy that trumps the MOS). Hopefully, with thanks to Randall, maybe we can soon put an end to this debate, shelve it in an archive, and actually discuss the content of the article, not the capitalization of it. Thanks, Mackensen and any other admin who has stepped in to kill this ongoing debate here, on the MOS pages (where it had bled into weeks ago), and elsewhere on WP. And thanks goes to Randall for ultimately bringing this to the attention of the above admins. — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support/Comment: If anyone disagrees with the current, capitalized title, I hope that they choose to leave it at this name, which seems to have majority support, and start an RM to move it back. Even though I think WP:SNOW might apply to that RM ever getting consensus. —Frungi (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: find one official source that uses the lowercase i. The title is spelled with an uppercase I, period, end of discussion. The MOS does not trump reality, it is merely a suggestion to keep things uniform when there is nothing else to base a decision on. Reality is the best reason to make a decision. There were plenty of people giving policy based reasons for the upper case I, consensus is still consensus if a bunch of wikilawyers don't like it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support alternate move to Star Trek İnto Darkness. Now you MOS-thumpers can have your beloved little dot and the rest of us still have the capital letter that gives our readers the impression that this is an encyclopedia made by people who actually have half a clue of what they're doing! Yay! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Mackensen's policy-compliant move. THIS IS WHY WP:AT IS A POLICY AND WP:MOS IS A GUIDELINE, DUDES.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  PS -- why are we going insane here, where Once Upon a Time (TV series) has never been at any other title? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Why is this RM seeking movement to this article's current title? GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • RM was initiated prior to a WP:BOLD move by Mackensen. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support alternate move I still prefer to rename it to Star Trek Unto Darkness as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek_into_Darkness#Unto.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoorayForZo1dberg (talk • contribs) 04:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I hope everyone learned a valuable lesson today; Parkinson's law of triviality fully applies to Wikipedia. The discussion didn't get out of hand despite being trivial, it got out of hand because it was trivial. Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't you mean Parkinson's Law of Triviality? Fletcher (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No exception for adages, sorry. Murphy's law will have to stay lowercased, sources and WP:COMMONNAME be damned to hell. Oh, and style guides that recommend capitalization of Murphy's Law can also go to hell [[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]]. Wikipedia knows better than reliable sources. I am not bitter at all. No, really. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, it's capitalized on the article's top image. GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  Er, no, that’s all caps. But everywhere that it’s not all caps, it is capitalized. —Frungi (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  Cool. GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support To me, it's just a matter of recognizing the subtitle. The official name and common name are what they are because almost everyone recognizes it. Fletcher (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Into is a compound preposition. The MOS says compound prepositions are capitalized. Anyone advocating lower case is selectively reading the MOS. Xkcdreader (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

'Into' is just a preposition. Compound prepositions are when you combine multiple words, like "according to". Fletcher (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, Into is a compound preposition compounding the words in and to. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/594/02/ Xkcdreader (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support All of the authoritative sources we have are saying "Into Darkness", with a capital. This is clear WP:COMMONNAME territory, even without counting the definition of it as an implied subtitle by various publications and as a subtitle by the creator. Seriously, guys, stop trying to change history without even having the sources for it. Having it uncapitalized is pure WP:OR. Silverseren^C 05:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I made a comment above, but did not at that moment express my Support for the move that has now been done. I so now state that I support the move to "Star Trek Into Darkness". — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment With all this arguing, you might as well make it, "574R 7r3K 1n70 D4rKn355". Can't people just leave things alone until there is a 100% definitive say one way or another? I mean, I personally think "Into" is correct, but I wouldn't keep an edit war going over it 70.73.185.165 (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, preferably with colon as per the early-closed move request above. Came here from xkcd, etc. Yes, it's normally bad form to run a Requested Move immediately after a previous one closed. However, not capitalizing "into" is so silly that WP:IAR applies. Yes, prepositions are normally not capitalized in titles. Except when the aesthetics are bad. Really, that's pretty much the rule, author's choice, capitalizing or not capitalizing the small words is a choice on what to emphasize. "into", being the only lowercase in such a version, looks bad. Paramount apparently agrees. It's as simple as that. (If Wikipedia wants to shy away from crazier stylings like Se7en, fine, but for a case like this, the rule in English really is "author does whatever fits.") SnowFire (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support BUT DO NOT ADD A COLON AND OPEN ANOTHER CAN OF WORMS - No official source uses a colon so neither should we. This has gone on long enough now largely due to those who have slavishly pointed to the MOS as justification for obdurately opposing all logical arguments to fixing the title to its proper form. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias describe the real world - if not, what are they for? This should never have gone on this long and some editors need to examine their behaviour and the image they project to the world of how Wikipedians operate. I would also suggest that the flood of "new editors" currently invading this talk page because they've seen a cartoon or whatever read thoroughly all previous discussions on this matter before rehashing old ground, which some are clearly not doing. Now let's all go away, take a breath and stick Wrath of Khan on. All will be well. Nsign (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support with comment on colons For consistency with all other Star Trek articles on Wikipedia, all of which were styled without a colon in their promotional materials but use a colon here, I think the colon really does belong in the end. But, as Nsign says above, this has gone on long enough for now, it's at a respectable stable point that's not making people go "WTF?", and the colon conversation can be brought up later. So, let's be happy with this giant leap in the right direction and take the last small step later after we've all had a rest. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC) (inserted here due to edit conflict)
• Oppose, but also I give up. This move has been bulldozed through by a bunch of fanboys who clearly have no regard for Wikipedia processes, conventions and practices. How the f--- has this been moved? An editor claims WP:BRD, but The bold, revert, discuss cycle requires that the page should be in the original state while the discussion takes place. And then someone has changed the MOS:CT guideline to fit in with this move, which is despicable and WP:POINTY. Given the lengthy ongoing discussion on this, and the recent media attention, it shows a complete lack of respect on behalf of the nominator for Wikipedia, its guidelines and its diligent editors. Remember, WP:NORUSH. Poor show chaps, poor show. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and note the capitalisation in this article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't throw your toys out of the pram. Dismissing this as being bulldozed through by a bunch of fanboys is simple petulance. The conventions and practices in this case were unsatisfactory to a clear majority of users and several wikipedia policies, from common name to the MOS itself, allowed for exceptions to be made where appropriate. The title of the film is Star Trek Into Darkness and it should be titled Star Trek Into Darkness here. Those who insist that the hallowed MOS cannot in fact be bent, even though more than one policy says it can, are damaging wikipedia's public image and the wider world has now unfortunately started to notice. And "no rush" my arse, this has dragged on for weeks. The article is now correct and this needs to end now. Nsign (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone has rushed to move it in order to influence the discussion so we are now discussing from a different position. If people don't like the practices they should seek to change them. And don't forget that there are two sides to every argument. To claim it is the people sticking up for Wikipedia's style guides that are damaging Wikipedia's reputation, is an accusation that could equally be applied to the fanboys. Don't forget, per WP:NCCAPS: "Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility." --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Being bold was the only way there was ever going to be some kind of resolution on this. The article is correct. I see no arguments from anywhere other than the handful of stubborn editors who will hold fast to the MOS mast as it sinks in a sea of common sense that the "fanboys" have damaged anything by ensuring this article reflects real-world usage, rather than a stubborn and unsatisfactory application of a flexible guideline. Nsign (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Bold, REVERT, then discuss. That's how it works. And have you not read the intro to WP:NCCAPS? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have and its a guideline thats also subject to common sense in its own words, and common name trumps it as policy anyway. Take it further Rob, report it to whoever, stamp your feet - nothing changes the fact that the editor has done the right thing and titled the article correctly. Nsign (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Revert is not mandatory. Reversion is the Bad Thing That Sometimes Happens that you want to fix, not the Lovely Thing you deliberately should do.

We're already discussing now. That part is good. Someone hijacked the discussion and made it into a bleeping RM thread. That part is bad. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC) meh, you win some, you lose some

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reliable(?) source on the title question

Can we consider the Daily Dot to be a reliable source? If so, this article explicitly addresses whether “Into” should be capitalized. I believe this brings the total to at least one source explicitly for capitalizing, and zero against, and this should settle the debate for now. (Ha, I actually typed this while the page was being moved, and got a redirect page when I tried to post it. And then it double posted when I tried again.) —Frungi (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Dot is not necessarily a reliable source, however it basically outlines the common sense reasoning of why it should be "Into Darkness." It seems people just got caught up in technicalities, and overanalyzed the situation. Elpato22 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've mentioned somewhere earlier, the Daily Dot has the sort of editorial oversight we require for a journalistic source to be reliable. However, how the studio spelled it should be a valid enough source. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your second point in that it doesn’t matter (for article titling purposes) what style the studio uses if no one actually uses it in practice. But that’s obviously not the case here, anyway. —Frungi (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree it wouldn't be the final source, but in the absence of all other information, that would be a valid source. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is startrekmovie.com not considered a reliable source? They have the capitalized "i" in the fine print at the bottom of their main page. Mistrx75 (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It’s a primary source; in general, secondary sources are more reliable. Also, see my previous post. —Frungi (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Any small group of people can put together a website and call one of their number the editor; that doesn't give it a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". We really need documentation from something that's published in real life as well as online. We most definitely should depend on the moviemaker's own website, regardless of how it capitalises it — this is a good example of WP:SELFSOURCE. Nyttend (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is not a question of primary/secondary sourcing or reliability, but of source reputabilty and independence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• And the Daily Dot has been considered a reliable source multiple times on RSN. Silverseren^C 08:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Is it reliable that they spell it that way" is not a meaningful question. The meaningful question is "are they well reputed". Do others care what they publish? (I think the answer is yes). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we can consider as reliable a source that seriously argues that the preposition must be capitalized "because Star Trek is a noun" (so what? you can still have a trek into something, a voyage up something, etc.) That said, it seems pretty stupid to me to insist on keeping the preposition in lower case just because of some internal convention that someone's dreamed up. If the convention is causing us to go against what common sense dictates and what the rest of the world is doing, then just change (or make an exception to) the convention. All this argument is making Wikipedia (and more significantly, Wikipedians) look silly. Victor Yus (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that everyone from Time to The New York Times spells it cap-I, I'm not sure what difference it makes if it a little-known website also spells it cap-I. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It’s not that they’re another source that uses a capital ‘I’. It’s that they explicitly say to use a capital ‘I’. A while back, I asked what would be necessary to allow an exception to the MOS, and one editor said that this would have to happen, and it has. —Frungi (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't Paramount get to be the final arbiter on how to spell the title of their own movie? You wouldn't try to claim that it should be spelled "E. E. Cummings" simply because standard English grammar requires the capitalization of proper names, would you? Instead, you'd defer to the spelling the person has chosen for themselves. Since the official web site of the movie, http://www.startrekmovie.com, lists the title as "Star Trek Into Darkness" (check the title in the browser tab or, if you can't see it, view the HTML source and look at the <TITLE> tag), then the question is settled. Paramount spells it with a capital I and no colon. Thus, that's the way it is to be spelled. --Rrhain

You're confusing spelling with styling. See many millions of words on this exact subject above. Anyway, this discussion is something we're steering clear of at the moment; we've only just come to something of a conclusion. So, be warned on pain of trout... drewmunn talk 17:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Colon usage: should we use "Star Trek: Into Darkness" or "Star Trek Generations"?

Title has been decided above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the past discussion has led to a capitalization decision on the grounds that "Into Darkness" is a subtitle rather than an indivisible part of a larger sentence. This brings the title in line with previous titles. Now, Star Trek promotional materials say a colon should not be used to separate the two parts. But in fact this turns out to be a stylistic decision that affects the whole film lineup, rather than just STID: for example, startrek.com (click on Movies) lists Star Trek Generations or Star Trek Nemesis without a colon.

Since Wikipedia usually tends to favor internal consistency over faithfulness to the author's style, shouldn't we consider naming the page Star Trek: Into Darkness? Alternatively, we could bring other page names in line with the new, preferred style by dropping the colon (Star Trek Nemesis). Finally, the third option is to just leave everything as-is so that pages would be named after the preferred style at the time of release, and frozen from that moment on.

What do you think? --Minordeifyme (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think no one wants to go there. We should NOT add a colon to this article - it isn't used by any official sources. I wouldn't object if the colon was removed from the other films if they aren't used in official sources, but I'm just not going there. Nsign (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking along these lines: On the official website, "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" is the last movie to be written with a colon, and all preceding movies have been written with a colon. "Star Trek Generations" is the first movie to be written without one, and all succeeding movies have been written without a colon. Clearly, the policy change from using to not using a colon was therefore initiated with the release of Star Trek Generations and Wikipedia should reflect this. Another consideration is that if the title of this article "Star Trek Into Darkness" is going to stay this way (which, btw, I support and find sensible), there will be an inconsistency in the titling of movie articles, because one article (this one) would use the titling as in the official source, whereas the other(s) would use titling according to Wikipedian style rules. I therefore think that the colon should be removed from all Star Trek movies after (and including) Star Trek Generations. 131.211.45.136 (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Colons, I think, are still implied. Since titles don't have to follow grammatical rules, they have been omitted. However, if one reads the titles, it's evident that they are subtitles, for, as just phrases, they don't necessarily make much sense. What meaning does Star Trek Nemesis, or Star Trek Insurrection, or any of those have, without a colon? Does Star Trek itself have a nemesis? Or is there an insurrection by Star Trek? No, the colon is implied. They are all subtitles. Similarly, Star Trek itself isn't going into darkness, rather, "Into Darkness" is an episode in the Star Trek context. It stands to fair reason that all Star Trek movies be entered in a colon fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baryon (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion - Star Trek is a prefix

Looking at the poster images for the film, "Into Darkness" shouldn't be considered a subtitle because a) it's in a bigger font and b) a title should be able to stand on it's own without the subtitle and "Star Trek" is just the name of the series. Even if it were a subtitle, a colon would not be needed because there's a line break instead. The poster images actually suggest that the title of the movie is "Into Darkness". Star Trek is just a prefix to that to clarify the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the discussions that have already taken place - people have noticed these things already. Nsign (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I can find nowhere in the discussions above where anyone suggests that "Star Trek" is a prefix, and that the title is simply "Into Darkness", as the IP user has suggested. cmadler (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Trust me they are there. I know because I brought it up. Some sections don't appear to be showing - are they collapsible or some such thing? - but the argument was had. Extensively. Anyway its irrelevant now - the title has been corrected and there is no colon. Let us together rebuild this world so that we may share in the days of peace. Nsign (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Changed, not corrected. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Did Nobody Check the Website?

Look at the page header of the official web site for the movie (http://www.startrekmovie.com). The Title of the page reads, "Star Trek Into Darkness." No, not the text on the page itself. Paramount isn't being helpful there and has put the title in all-caps. I'm talking about the <TITLE> tag in the underlying HTML code. It's what appears in the tab of the browser. That reads, "Star Trek Into Darkness." I should think that Paramount gets to decide on the proper spelling of their own movie and we necessarily defer to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrhain (talk • contribs) 18:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Paramount uses the title in a sentence in all their literature. That proves that "into darkness" is not a subtitle, ergo it falls under the auspices of MOS:CT. It's been good enough for hundreds of other articles, but apparently not this one. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't prove it's not a subtitle at all. It's simply a creative piece of writing used to promote the film. Nothing more, nothing less. douts (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The evidence shows that the title was used in a sentence by the creators of the film. That's an indisputable, citable fact. That seems weightier than with your opinion that it was a "creative piece of writing" that somehow doesn't matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Incidentally, someone just tried to close this thread for no apparent reason other than they consider the matter closed. There was no consensus for the page move, and even if there was there is nothing to stop us continuing to discuss the matter because consensus can change. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

The film Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol , also by J.J. Abrams, likewise features the name of the main series in a smaller font with the subtitle (if you can call it that) in a larger font on the next line. So the display of the title of Star Trek Into Darkness was probably chosen this way to ape J.J. Abrams last MI film. The WP article uses some kind of dash in the title of Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol so how about using a dash here as well. So we would have Star Trek – Into Darkness. Wstidtp (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The official M:I site uses a dash. Not so for STID. (Is that acronym a thing? I’m going to start saying “stid” out loud when referring to it.) Pretty much everyone capitalizes the ‘I’ with no punctuation. Besides, the supertitle M:I has a colon in it itself, so the dash is necessary for clarity. “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol” doesn’t really make sense to the eye. —Frungi (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't seen any other sources that use "Star Trek – Into Darkness" while there are a number of sources (although not all) which use "Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol". Ryan Vesey 23:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Plus there's a factual error in this proposal. Abrams didn't direct M:I – GP; Stuart Baird did. Abrams directed Mission: Impossible III. Anyway, the point is that "Star Trek Into Darkness" is the way that the actual people involved in creating the work have consistently capitalized it, and we have no damn right morally to do otherwise. oknazevad (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We do it with hundreds of other composition titles. What has morality got to do with it? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it’s that it’s the way everyone has consistently capitalized it—sometimes I see a colon, but the capitalization is universal, from what I can tell. Wikipedia ought not be the exception to something like that. Adherence to house style rules was the issue for some WP editors, but if every source, including those with similar house rules, breaks theirs, then we still ought not be the exception. —Frungi (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Splitting the talk page into "(i|I)nto" and "non-(i|I)nto"

So that sane, productive discussions about actually improving the article can actually take place rather than getting lost in all the mud-slinging. 184.70.12.238 (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, this is no longer necessary now that the article has been moved and the furor seems to have died down, and further discussion on this page will be about improving the article rather than arguing over names. —Frungi (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This page was the best flame-fest ever! Can someone rename the page back to 'i' so we can carry on? Hughperkins (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If that’s the goal, then I think you’d do better to rename it to ‘u’ per this discussion, and then vociferously argue for it when they want to move it back. —Frungi (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That section was definitely the highlight for me. Especially the Star Wars comment. I laugh out loud every time I re-read it! Hughperkins (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

why don't we just not use capital letters on wikipedia? the english language used to use capitals for all nouns, now only proper nouns and beginning of sentences. we dont need them at the beginning of sentences, there's a period. plus, its very cool in a low key way. and, with smaller letters, we would use fewer electrons. user:mercurywoodrose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercurywoodrose (talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Because Jimbo is not E.E. Cummings. —Frungi (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Into is a compound preposition. The Title makes sense as a sentence fragment (noun phrase), because Star is an adjective.

First off, I edited a section it asked me not to, and I apologize. I ctrl+f'd to my name to reply to someone and didn't see the warning. Super sorry. Anyway..

The MOS explicitly says "The first word in a compound preposition" should be capitalized. Linguistics lesson time. Into is a compound of the prepositions In and to. http://owl.english.purd,ue.edu/owl/resource/594/02/ Compound_preposition If the space was not removed through reduction the tile would read 'Star Trek In to Darkness'. If a compound becomes one word, it would represent "the first word in a compound." The guideline was plain as day, yet casually ignored by those fighting for strict adherence to the lower case guideline. The most literal, strict, and pedantic interpretation of MOS (which I don't advocate anyway, for it is just a guideline) demands that Into be capitalized. There was no written exception for single word compound prepositions. Into is a specific type of compound called a copulative similar to words bittersweet and sleepwalk. FURTHERMORE, Into is a very special type of preposition called a directional spatial adpositions. Directional spatial adpositions can only combine with verbs that involve motion. Onward and Upward Onto point two.

I want to take a second to address the "it cant be a sentence because stars can't take treks" argument, because I think it is wrong. When into is used in a sentence, Into modifies the word Trek as trek is the verb. Remember, directional spatial adpositions can only combine with verbs that involve motion. 'Trek Into' becomes the verb phrase and then 'Trek Into Darkness' becomes the noun phrase because it describes a specific event (such as the Civil War.) Star becomes an adjective. Everyone arguing the sentence doesn't make sense is arguing that Star can only be used as a noun. But in a sentence Star is parsed as an adjective. We have a Trek Into Darkness. What type of Trek is it? A Star type Trek. It is a Trek (Into Darkness) that pertains to Stars. (See definition 17 of star in this dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/star)

They have purposely used the phrase in a way which is unfamiliar to fans. To boldly go indeed (yes I know I split the infinitive, it was an allusion.) Think of Star and Space as synonyms for Futuristic in this use scenario. Yet, I would argue that Star has always been the adjective and Trek has always been the noun. The show has always been about a Trek of the Star/Space variety, and never about Stars themselves taking Treks. The words have been used this way for a long time. The new title becomes equivalent to Futuristic Trek Into Darkness, or Trek Into Darkness in Space. Thus, Star Trek Into Darkness can be read as a sentence fragment because Star describes the type of Trek. The word Star itself has taken on a less common meaning (in Space.) Star is in the dictionary as this type of adjective, we just don't see it too often outside of the titles Star Trek and Star Wars. I personally think they did this on purpose to draw attention to the title, and get people talking about it. In a way it is reminiscent of the title The Empire Strikes Back.

In short: Into should have been capitalized from the beginning as per MOS and the compound clause. In addition, the subtitle debate is wildly irrelevant, because as a fragment the title is perfectly parse-able as a legitimate and fully grammatical noun phrase.

As for this issue as a whole, from an outside perspective, it seems as if consensus was reached a long time and two people managed to hold up a common sense fix by continually misusing the MOS (by forgetting the compound preposition clause, among other things like ignoring common sense and ignore all rules.) It wreaks of people who were cocksure of their position and the importance of policy, but unwilling to acknowledge they could be wrong or that policy itself could be wrong. I think a retrospective examination is in order as to how two stubborn people were able to hold up such a silly issue for so long by continually referring to a guideline that specifically said to watch out for exceptions. This type of thing should never happen again. It is painfully obvious that wp:commonname and wp:IAR (ignore all rules) should have taken precedence. This issue is embarrassing for everyone involved, and those fighting for a lower case i would be wise to reevaluate their conduct. Xkcdreader (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I've stated similar sentiments elsewhere. Some users need to examine their approach to this encyclopedia and their conduct towards others who act in good faith to make articles as accurate as possible. Nsign (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As a Wiktionary editor, I feel the need to point out that if "trek" is regarded as a verb, "to trek into darkness" must be a verb phrase, not a noun phrase. The phrase "trek into darkness" can only be a noun phrase if "trek" is regarded as a noun; compare "open the school" (verb [phrase]) vs "opening of the school" (noun [phrase]). (I would have thought Xkcdreader would have realised this when writing that "'Trek Into Darkness' becomes the noun phrase because it describes a specific event".) The claim that "star" is an adjective is interesting; I would have interpreted it as a noun (used in a noun+noun compound, as is common in English; compare "field worker", "computer science"), but I see that some dictionaries do consider it an adjective; I've opened an inquiry on Wiktionary into whether or not it meets Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion as an adjective. Regardless of whether "star" is an adjective or a noun, the second element "star trek"/"star trek into darkness" is a noun: if "star" is a noun, it is singular; it will only be followed by "trek" rather than "treks" if the whole phrase is viewed as imploring a celestial body "(O) star, trek into darkness (and be not afraid)". If "star" is an adjective, a verb should only follow it if it is being substantivised, and even then it needs a definite article to avoid sounding like Journalese: "poor have a hard time finding work"? A non-substantivised adjective followed by a verb makes no sense: *"red administer the school"? In the end, "star trek into darkness" does seem to be a noun phrase, like "descent into hell", but not for the reasons Xkcdreader claims. -sche (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Trek Into Darkness should be a noun phrase. It describes a specific instance. What happens when you put a verb and a noun together? Darkness is a noun. If you can put an article in front of it, it should be a noun phrase, right? You can take a trek into darkness just like you can take a star trek into darkness just like you can take a trek into darkness in space. All the variants appear to be a noun phrase. It only becomes a verb phrase when you add the infinitive to to the beginning. My example is [ A Civil War/To Civil War ] I think the best way I have seen it described is "Road Trip Into Wilderness" It describes a specific Trip Into Wilderness. Hey remember that one time when we took a trip into wilderness. The reason I DONT think it is a verb phrase, is because I don't see star as an adverb. I suppose it could be an adverb, but the dictionary doesn't list it as one. Let's play a little substitution game. Muppets in Space (muppets are a noun), Star Trek in Space, Star Trek Into Darkness in Space. Or when someone says Disney on ice. Star as an adjective is roughly the same as "in space." I would also like to point out I think Star has ALWAYS been an adjective, since the starwars/startrek days. It modify the wars/trek noun to tell you what type of war/trek it is. A war of the star variety, aka war in space. The phrase star trek doesnt make sense to me if star is a noun. If I said Waterfall Marathon, you would think I meant waterfalls running. I don't think Star's themselves can trek. I think it works like the phrase Safari Adventure, Safari is the type of adventure, so it's an adjective. Hmm the more I think about it, the more right you seem. If trek into darkness is a noun phrase, trek must be a specific instance too, and thus a noun. It works as a command too. I command you: Trek Into Darkness right now. (Soooo if Trek Into Darkness is a verb phrase, does Star become an adverb for the first time ever?) Xkcdreader (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

re "I DONT think it is a verb phrase": then we agree. :] re "The phrase star trek doesnt make sense to me if star is a noun": in "road trip", do you think "road" is an adjective? If so... well, we basically agree on how the phrase functions ("road" functions like and adjective and modifies "trip", indicating the kind of "trip"; "star" likewise modifies "trek"), but I'm making the pedantic point that "road" and "star" (and "safari") are technically w:Noun adjuncts in the noun+noun compounds "road trip" and "star trek", rather than true adjectives. (wikt:WT:English adjectives has some good tests of true adjectives. In short, you can tell "star" isn't an adjective because you can't say a sky "is too star" or "is more star than" another sky, nor that one trip is "roader" than another trip, whereas you can say a clear Death Valley sky "is too starry" or "is more starry than" a cloud-obscured London sky, and a trip from Arizona to Death Valley is "shorter" than a trip from Arizona to London. And a war can't "become star" the way it can "become bloody". But see the Wiktionary page for the nuances and caveats.) -sche (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Section

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Any reason it was removed when it was well sourced and written by an established editor who is no doubt aware of the relevant policies? MisterShiney ✉ 07:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC) I agree with you in that it should be included. As dumb as the whole issue is, it spilled over into pop culture and the journalism realm. The fight is now history in the most literal sense. The correct title of the movie itself was the subject of the xkcd comic, thus mentioning the comic and the dailydot article would be appropriate. THAT SAID, it needs to be rewritten in its current form. The whole subtitle part should be removed completely, (see my section above for why the subtitle debate was irrelevant in the first place.) Secondly, the "some editors" comes off as a personal attack and could be written better. See my suggestion below. Xkcdreader (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC) The correct capitalization of the word 'Into' in the movie title became a matter of some debate on Wikipedia and was subsequently mocked by xkcd author Randall Munroe. In a comic titled 'Star Trek into Darkness' he lampooned the fact that over forty thousand words of debate had been produced on the issue. Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate spanned over two months. Morris also recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title." Guy Keleny, The Independent's top grammarian, compared it to David Garnett's novel Lady Into Fox (incidentally, Wikipedia use a lowercase 'i' for this title as well), noting that a quick internet search indicated that most publishers used a capital 'I'. Xkcdreader (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC) It is not notable when xkcd or any other webcomic makes fun of a topic. This section would be relevant in an article titled Wikipedia article about Star Trek Into Darkness, but that isn't this page. Prodego talk 08:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC) No, but the results here are notable; see the top of this Talk page. —Frungi (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC) This isn't true. There is a page explicitly outlining when it is relevant. Wikipedia:Xkcd_in_popular_culture The Independent wrote about it, and it meets the criteria. Furthermore, the Star Trek In Darkness page itself ALREADY has a Title section. My blurb written above is neutral, accurate, and sourced. I also think a sentence should be added to the paragraph already existing which says Simon Pegg described the word Trek as a verb. Xkcdreader (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Probably it was removed because of this from WP:SELFREF: To avoid self reference, a mention needs to reflect its importance in their overall body of work. (That’s in reference to BLPs, but I think it applies here too.) I agree that it certainly seems to have gotten enough attention to warrant a mention somewhere, but I’m neutral on whether that’s here. —Frungi (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC) At the time I was not aware of SELFREF, and bearing that in mind perhaps my original version placed too much emphasis on the Wikipedia angle, but The Independent does make interesting grammatical observations about the title of the film which may be of relevance to the article. I certainly think there has been sufficient independent coverage to satisfy notability, but I'm happy to leave it to other editors to decide whether the article should cover it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Oh, please let's not include this in the article. It has NOTHING to do with the film, its self-referential and, really - do we want to draw any more attention to this farce than there already is? Nsign (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC) The section should not be included here. It has no relation to the film whatsoever, instead it is about an argument on Wikipedia. Sure, maybe it could be included it on Wikipedia in the media or Wikipedia in culture or XKCD or something, as it is about a criticism of Wikipedia on XKCD. It is not about the film. See WP:SUBJECT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Disagree on one point: It's about criticism of Wikipedia in the media (using that term kinda loosely here). xkcd may have provoked said coverage, but it clearly extends beyond the comic at this point. For crying out loud, I get mentioned in multiple Google hits for simply summarizing the argument. —Frungi (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Okay, but, as per WP:SUBJECT, I'm sure you agree that it doesn't belong here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Sure it does. Read my italicized paragraph above. There is a TITLE section in the article as we speak. It talks about the title of the movie being unconventional. Then this happens because the title is confusing and it makes the news. The XKCD and the Daily Dot and the Independent articles were about the title of the movie and how it is parsed grammatically/linguistically. The italics I wrote above organically fit in the title section of the article. I would also add a sentence after the word Conan saying Pegg stated the word Trek is a verb. The entire title section should discuss the formatting/grammar of the title. I don't think it is fair to vote no because the subject is personally embarrassing. This is no different than Anonymous being mentioned in the V for Vendetta article. The movie title alone inspired a two month 40 thousand word debate, because no one could parse the grammar? That fits the subject of the "Title" paragraph. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC) It's not "personally embarrassing"! Like I said, it can go in an appropriate article, but it isn't appropriate here per WP:SUBJECT. V for Vendetta is completely different as it inspired real world events. And not wanting to accuse you of anything, but considering your username and the fact you have only been editing for a couple of days (exclusively on this page), do you have any WP:COI that you should declare? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Did this turn into a personal attack? Is reading xkcd a conflict of interest? You are wrong to cite WP:SUBJECT because the confusing nature of the title of the movie became frontpage news. WP:SUBJECT actually supports my argument. "Articles where Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article" Wikipedia played a major roll in the confusion surrounding the title of the movie. If it had stayed self contained I would agree with you. It didn't The question of how to parse the title spread to journalism. It is perfectly valid to cite journalism discussing the title of the article in the title section. It is absolutely unequivocally on the topic of the movie title. To say internationally published confusion surrounding the title of the movie doesn't belong in the title section is ludicrous. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC) You're clearly missing the point about "Articles where Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article". Wikipedia has had no influence whatsoever over the film or the titling thereof. If Abrams decided to change the title of the film as a direct result of our squabbling, only then would Wikipedia have "played a major role in the subject of the article". As I said, it may be appropriate on an article about Wikipedia, but as it has no real-world influence on the subject of the article, then it isn't appropriate here. Remember, XKCD and the other articles are writing about Wikipedia and the actions of Wikipedians, not about how the studio has named the film. And I think you're over-dramatising when you suggest that there has been "internationally published confusion surrounding the title of the movie". --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Let me try and frame this a little differently. If the Daily Dot and Independent had run articles about how confusing the title is to parse grammatically, there would be no debate. Everyone would be for inclusion because it directly relates to the title. But because a mention of a wkipedia debate is required to give context as to why the articles exist, it becomes controversial. The subject is the confusing grammar of the title. The context is the wikipedia debate. You can't discuss the subject without the context without being confusing. IF YOU READ the italicized paragraph above you will see the focus is on journalists discussing the grammar and marketing surrounding the title, and not wikipedia. You claim that JJ would need to change the title of the film for it to be mentioned. Go back to my analogy. Anonymous is mentioned in the V for Vendetta article. Anonymous has not influenced V for Vendetta in any way. They didn't change the movie. Articles discussing the grammar of the movie title are 100% appropriate in a section about the movie title. This topic is clearly laid out in Wikipedia:Xkcd_in_popular_culture. It meets the criteria for inclusion (Have reliable sources which do not generally cover xkcd pointed out the strip?) because the topic is the grammar of the title not wikipedia itself.Xkcdreader (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC) The WP:Xkcd in popular culture describes exactly why it shouldn't be included here! Look at the "Appropriate references" where real-world events happened to the subject of the page: "Python 3 actually added this module", "the campaign received over a hundred thousand dollars from online donations" and "he actually dressed up like that". The parallel is to be drawn with the Voynich manuscript example instead, where "because the xkcd strip has had no larger influence on the manuscript itself, nor on the public reception of the manuscript". So the xkcd strip has had no larger influence on Star Trek, but it has had a larger influence on Wikipedia and the public reception of Wikipedia, hence it would be appropriate on a page about Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Xkcd_in_popular_culture does not say real-world events must happen. It has 3 points (read the "how to tell the difference) and says you should be able to answer yes to one or more. We can answer yes to one. You completely ignored the rest of my point. If newspapers ran articles about the confusing nature of the grammar of the title, inclusion would be a no brainer. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC) The situation clearly follows the pattern of the "Inappropriate references" example. And because it might meet one of the criteria of "how to tell the difference" section is not reason enough for inclusion. It doesn't say "if it meets the criteria include it", it says "if you can't, then don't". Big difference. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Look, we are talking about an unprecedented situation here. Wikipedia has a couple big policies like Ignore All The Rules, and Be Bold. I am trying to use common sense and objectively document the confusing nature of the movie title. The fact that a large portion of the debate happened on wikipedia should have little bearing. If the New York Times had a 40 thousand word debate on the subject of how to grammatically parse the movie title, we would mention it here. I am not trying to ruin the article. I am not trolling just to agitate you. I am not trying to take sides to rub it in the other ones face. I am trying to be bold and document this event in an encyclopedic fashion. There is something special about the construction of this movie title. It is incredibly confusing to a lot of people (mostly because they are not expecting Trek to be a verb and Star to be an adjective [I suppose it could be an adverb too if 'Trek Into Darkness is interpreted as a verb phrase. /tangent]) I am asking you to work with me here. Ignore the rules and think outside the box for a second. Does a one or two sentence mention of this event make the article worse? Does it hurt anything to at least include it temporarily? Does it suddenly destroy all the other wikipedia policies to make an exception? I am sure I can go dig up policy which makes just about any proposal someone comes up with. Being overly dependent on the rules is what got us into this mess in the first place. If I write a better more encyclopedic version of this paragraph will you help me, and put it in the article? Boldly go where wikipedia has not gone before. Once we can actually see it in the article, we can have another discussion about it's relevance without using old policy documents. The debate should plainly and simply be "does it improve the article?" So my proposal is this. I will rewrite the title section and post it in a new paragraph on the talk page. I ask you to include it in the article and then the community can debate if it improves the page. Refusing to engage me with this proposal will demonstrate the problem with the bureaucratic nature of wikipedia itself. There will always be some stickler for a rule that votes against inclusion just because some other page says so. The over dependence on rules is what caused this mess in the first place. Let's try something different, because that didn't work. That behavior doesn't make wikipedia a better place, it makes it a place so frustrating that quality contributors quit and leave. The enforcement of rules should never become such a burden that they chase away people that otherwise are willing to work hard to improve this site. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, it would make the article worse, as it would add WP:UNDUE weight to the topic, as described in WP:SUBJECT. As I keep saying, it's appropriate on a page about Wikipedia, not on one about a Star Trek film. Go add it there. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC) I think I probably agree with Rob on this, it should be mentioned somewhere, but probably not in this article. douts (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC) The spirit of wikipedia is be bold. Use common sense. Ignore the rules. One of the five pillars is wikipedia does not have firm rules. Yet you keep citing rule after rule to prevent participation. I don't know how else to say this. The unconventional and confusing grammar of the movie title should be mentioned in the title section of the movie's page. As I have tried and failed to explain, the inclusion has nothing to do with wikipedia. It addresses the grammatical structure of the title. It doesn't belong on a page about wikipedia because it isn't about wikipedia, it is about the movie title. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Being bold and ignoring the rules are all well and good if it improves Wikipedia, but not if it doesn't. You could argue that vandalism is being bold and ignoring the rules, but it isn't exactly helpful! I don't mean to be WP:BITEY, but as I've tried to demonstrate, following the guidelines (not "rules") shows us how to appropriately add this information to Wikipedia. I'm not saying that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, it just doesn't belong here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC) And as I keep saying (which it feels is falling on deaf ears because it is continually ignored) is that it DOES belong here because it directly related to the article topic. "Confusion has arisen as to how the movie title should be grammatically interpreted" followed by a newspaper citation. Confusion about the movie title is newsworthy and significant. It makes the article better to analyze the grammatical interpretation of the title. Comparing documentation of the titles confusing nature to vandalism is a straw man and unappreciated. I feel as if you have a conflict of interest in this discussion because you were involved in the initial debate. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Where exactly has this "confusion" arisen? And be careful of accusing me of WP:COI, when you have a WP:SPA and a username reminiscent of the webcomic that broke this story. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Me making a new user account for this conversation is irrelevant. Address my argument and stop with the personal attacks. Just because wikipedia is one of the places where the conversation happened does not mean the title is not confusing. You were directly involved in the initial discussion. You would have motive for suppressing mention of the title debate. True or false, debate has arisen as to how one interprets the title? If the answer is true it should be included in the movies title section, the part of the article that discusses the movie title Xkcdreader (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC) I repeat - Where exactly has this "confusion" arisen? In the real world or on Wikipedia? Are people running around the streets saying "I'm so confused over the new title of the Star Trek movie" or are the news reports only commenting on the fact that we had an argument here as to how best to apply the guidelines/MoS? And I have no "motive" to suppress anything. I've not even suggested we do - as I've said, by all means include it in a page about Wikipedia (as that's what the articles are about) - just that it is inappropriate here as per every guideline I can find. Incidentally - you mention that you've created "a new user account for this conversation". I trust you've read WP:MULTIPLE. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC) I also agree with Rob - yes the overriding rule is to “use common sense," "be bold," and "ignore the rules" - but there are also rules that shouldn't be ignored just for the sake of being bold. Common sense isn't always right, and one person's common sense (to include a reference to the title's confusing nature) may be different than another’s (to not include that reference here). That's why it's good to have a discussion about whether it makes sense or not. So let’s have that discussion without saying that someone who disagrees with your opinion is doing so just because they're ardently sticking to the rules without thought. Jonahx (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC) To your point about including the paragraph - I do think it's WP:UNDUE off WP:SUBJECT and self-referential. The news organizations were not covering the fact that the title is "difficult to parse" -it seems pretty straightforward for the general public - they were covering the fact that people on Wikipedia were having a protracted discussion about it. And they only covered that when it was brought to light by a popular web-comic. My sense is that the writers and editors of the article were printing them much less due to the grammatical interestingness of the title, and much more due to the fact that it's interesting journalism to document the perceived fanaticism of both Star Trek enthusiasts and Wikipedia enthusiasts. The "Title" section in this article is also not about the grammar of the title - it's about the title's place among other Star Trek movies - and its origin. The discussion did gain wider audience and became newsworthy - so of course it would be proper to include your paragraph on another page - but to do so on this page, I think, vastly overweighs the importance of this discussion to pretty much everybody, and almost certainly everybody coming to the page looking for information about the movie. If the point really is not about the Wikipedia discussion and really because you think the title is grammatically confusing - the most that is warranted would be something like "The title's grammatical construction has been the subject of debate (with references)," but personally I think even that is overstating it since the only place the debate has occurred is here (and when this debate has been covered in other outlets), and would require that sentence to be added to hundreds and thousands of movies and works with grammatically ambiguous titles. Jonahx (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC) The fact that xkcd broke the story is completely irrelevant. The Daily Dot article covers the full controversy including the talking points. Virtual events can be documented, they do not need to occur in the streets. I don't think discussing the unprecedented use of Trek as a verb (how old is this series, how often have they explicitly done this) adds unnecessary weight to the article. I think discussing the unique title as compared to every other entry in the series very much belongs on this wikipedia page. JJ Abrams himself is already directly quoted in the article, discussing the title's unique nature. I think you are vastly overestimating wikipedia's uniqueness if you think this the only pace where the subtitle/sentence and trek/verb debate has occurred. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC) The Daily Dot article covers the topic in relation to Wikipedia and Wikipedians, nothing else. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC) This conversation was EVERYWHERE back in September. Here is a news article from Sep 10th. http://www.blastr.com/2012/09/star-trek-2-gets-an-offic.php The fact that the debate blew to such big proportions on wikipedia is IRRELEVANT. If it had happened on reddit, or cnn, or in time square itself it would be equally newsworthy. The title is confusing. It has been covered by countless news organizations. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Xkcdreader, I see what you're saying but the debate was really about Wikipedia and its adherence to the MOS and when to make exceptions or follow other policies such as CommonName etc. No one disagreed that the movie title title IS Star Trek Into Darkness. The disagreement concerned how Wikipedia chose to style it - there were no debates anywhere else in the media (as far as I know) prior to this farrago about the film title. This was a Wikipedia issue and the problem originated on this talk page. It wasn't an existing issue with the title that we just picked up on. We should not therefore self-reference. Do we add something to every article where there's been a style dispute saying that Wikipedia editors argued about it? No, and nor should we for this article. And - my personal opinion - I think its better for Wikipedia if we try and limit how much light we shine on this episode. There's been enough reputational damage as it is. Nsign (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC) First off, I don't have multiple accounts, I have a new account. Enough with the rule citations, PLEASE. How many times can I ask that we address the topic and not my name? Personally I think any regular wikipedia editor will be biased against inclusion. The same way that an enron employee would be against inclusion of negative press to a stock market fraud page. Nsign confirms my belief by saying that it should be concealed to prevent further damage to wikipedia's reputation. As a non-editor who decided to chime in for once, this is terrible. As such, I feel the only people that can be objective are fresh eyes. I am not a part of your culture, I can be more objective than you. I have seen this same conversation all over the internet. Trek forums, reddit, movie forums, twitter etc etc. Nowhere did it get as out of hand as wikipedia. The title is generally confusing. Is it meant to be a sentence or is In Darkness a subtitle? (hint: I believe it is both) Is Trek a verb or a noun? (hint: probably more a verb than noun) These are common questions that exist outside wikipedia. Wikipeda is the best example to cite when discussing the debate, because it went the furthest here. There were more eyes and more participants than dedicated star trek forums. It didn't get so out of hand that at least three newspapers (that I know of) covered the topic. The fact that Simon Pegg tweeted that trek is now a verb definitively proves my point. The official marketing campaign is using trek as a verb. Such a change as compared to prior use should be covered by an encyclopedia. The fact that its use as a verb caused mass confusion (and it is completely irrelevant WHERE it happened, it happened.) created a two month conversation that still has not ended, is testament to the fact that this isnt some minor thing that should be brushed under the rug. The use of Trek as a verb and the general confusion it caused should be documented pubicly. Period. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC) The stuff about Wikipedia is a distraction from the article. I don't see that the title has caused widespread confusion or debate to the point where it is notable. Xkcdreader, if you can cite reliable sources evidencing a more widespread controversy about the title, I encourage you to do so. But so far, I think the focus in the news has been on Wikipedia's own dysfunction and inability to resolve something that seems trivial. I was looking at Criticism of Wikipedia#Criticism of the community and thought something might be developed there where it could be more appropriate. Fletcher (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC) It only got media attention once it blew up here (and even then, its not exactly on the front pages, we're talking a handful of online articles). Before that it was limited to forums and the twittersphere. The controversy is of Wiki's own making and we should not self reference a Wikipedia dispute in an article intended to inform people about the FILM. Nsign (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC) I'm happy to see I have a new fight to watch for a few days :-D Hughperkins (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC) They'll be writing articles about this dispute soon at this rate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC) To add something relevant to the current discussion, perhaps the question boils down to: would someone who comes to the article about Star Trek Into Darkness potentially be interested in the Talk Page controversy? Would a Star Trek fan who comes to the article about Star Trek into Darkness potentially be interested in the Talk Page controversy? Hughperkins (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Simply, I don't think someone would come to this page for this information per WP:UNDUE. However, someone interested in Wikipedia controversies would want to find it on a page relevant to that. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Technically, WP:UNDUE states that each article or page fairly represents all viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoints, thus is not I think relevant to whether to reference the controversy. Hughperkins (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Agreed - I'm also a new user - (I've maybe put minor edits on two or three pages and never added to a talk page) So let's not say that there's some movement by wikieditors to suppress this, and all the fresh eyes think it's a good idea. Again, the debate about the wiki title is interesting and newsworthy, the debate about Star Trek titles and their grammatical nuances are interesting, and what this movie's title adds to that debate is interesting. I just don't think the proper place for it is on the Wikipedia Page for the film. Eager to please Hugh :) Jonahx (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC) We can't guess how much irrelevant minutiae the average movie fan would be interested in, and that's really who the article should be aimed at, not Star Trek fans. They've got their own sites. The article should be about the film, not us having a barney over a capital letter.Nsign (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Would Star Trek fans be interested in the fact that trek is being used as a verb for the first time, and that into darkness is apparently not a subtitle. JJ himself commented on the unprecedented of the topic. Simon Pegg came out and spoke on the verbness. I will list other organizations that covered the verbification of the word Trek. http://www.blastr.com/2012/09/star-trek-2-gets-an-offic.php Ctrl+f this deadline page, there is a noun verb debate dated september 10th. http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/paramount-hangs-a-title-star-trek-into-darkness-is-next-enterprise-voyage/ Here are more sources http://www.movieweb.com/news/star-trek-into-darkness-is-rumored-to-be-the-title-of-j-j-abrams-sequel http://www.grammarly.com/answers/questions/10287-star-trek-into-darkness-phrasal-verb/ http://www.slashfilm.com/zachary-quinto-and-karl-urban-talk-star-trek-2-now-officially-titled-star-trek-into-darkness/ The grammar of the title was wildly discussed outside of wikipedia, it just got the most attention here. IF the community chooses to address the uniquness of the title, it should also address the confusion it caused. If it is mentioned, it should include the use of the movie title in a sentence in marketing material. If it addresses the confusion it caused it needs to mention wikipedia. If it mentions wikipeida common sense dictates it would also mention the xkcd comic which broke the story. To pretend to ignore the confusion that trek as a verb caused just because it partially happened on wikipedia is dishonest. Wikipedia isn't some sacred cow above being referenced in a story. Whether the editors want to admit it or not Trek being a verb is a huge deal and the fact that it spawned this debate is my evidence. Can anyone cite a single movie title that has been more controversial as to its grammatical interpretation? I feel like the existence of the debate on wikipedia is clouding everyone's judgement. As far as star trek goes, the title change is historical. If it wasn't such a big change this event never would have happened. Just because some of the discussion happened on wikipedia doesnt mean we should whitewash its existence. I personally think that non trek/wikipedia fans would find it very interesting to hear that Trek is being used as a verb for the first time, and all the controversy such use brought the internet. If random youtube stars get pages, this should get a mention.Xkcdreader (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC) I think it's sufficiently covered as it is, but even if we do add something about the confusion over the noun/verb/subtitle/whatever, it would only be relevant to mention the Wikipedia debate on this page if the debate had caused the problem. As you state, this goes back to September, so this pre-dates the Wikipedia issue, and thus isn't really relevant. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC) You think it is sufficiently covered? How many times does the word verb appear in the Star Trek Into Darkness article? Xkcdreader (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC) I mean I think we've covered the titling of the film sufficiently. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC) The debate wasn't really about whether it was a verb phrase or not (although it did come up). It was about whether or not to capitalise "Into" as per what every other source was doing and which policies / guidelines of Wikipedia supported or did not support that move. I'm having an argument about an argument. Someone please - shoot me in the head. Nsign (talk) The capital I debate was derived from the debate over whether it was a subtitle or a sentence fragment (in this case a noun phrase). The use of Trek as a verb was the core of the contention. I can even cite this one, it was written by you http://www.grammarly.com/answers/questions/10287-star-trek-into-darkness-phrasal-verb/ Xkcdreader (talk) No, its the other way around. I changed it to "Into", someone changed it back, I questioned it here and it went from there. The phrasal verb stuff came up later while we discussed whether it could be capitalised as part of a phrasal verb. This debate was all about capitalisation - the subtitle/not subtitle stuff came up to either support or oppose it. Nsign (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC) You can't use that as a WP:RS - that isn't independent coverage. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Xkcdreader, you might consider that currently there are at least 3 people who feel that this should not be included in the film article, and only you arguing that it should be, so the consensus would appear to be that it should not be. Continuing to argue the point only reinforces the current consensus I think. I think if you want to change consensus, your best action might be to wait for other people to weigh in on the discussion. As for me, I don't have any strong opinion one way or the other, though I confess that my personal bias is I'm an Xkcd fan, and had never heard of the film until yesterday :-D Hughperkins (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Really........? We're arguing about this? If half of the energy put into this debate was put into finding a cure for cancer, we'd be well on our way. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Couldn't agree more. We've already told User:Xkcdreader that the content isn't suitable here, but could be added elsewhere, but he won't seem to accept this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the articles! They give us a lot to go on. The blastr article is the only one that seems to me to specifically talk about the grammar of the title, which implys a broader debate not started by this discussion (exactly how broad is not clear). The others are less useful. One is an ask.com-esque question that likely came about because of this discussion (see who posted it? lol) The other articles mention there is hype about the title, but not because it's grammatically interesting. The slashfilm says there is confusion and speculation about the title, but it seems to be referencing the meaning of the title -not the grammar - not to mention being more of a hype-inducing phrase than one reporting actual conditions. The reason people are pushing back against including your paragraph is not because we're trying to "protect Wikipedia." People are saying that the reason this received so much coverage is not because there is so much confusion about the title - it's because it became a heated discussion on Wikipedia, which is why it would be inappropriate to reference that discussion on this page. There's another question about whether the possible change of Star Trek to a verb as possibly implied by the title is newsworthy enough to include here or on another page - I guess that's up for discussion. It certainly is important for a certain number of people, and Xkcdreader believes it is. I don't really know - perhaps it's more appropriate on anotther Star Trek page where implied title over time verbiness can be discussed? (Did I really just write that?) Otherwise I think it's sufficent to say that it diverges from other Star Trek movie naming conventions as is already done. Jonahx (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC) And I said, I think people who participated in the initial debate/are regular wikipedia editors will be biased against inclusion. I can see why wikipedia regulars would want to hide this. Nsign flat out said it. Fresh eyes from outside the wikipedia realm are necessary. @Jonahx, Like I said I am willing to write a neutral evaluation of the commotion the title caused across the interwebs, I just need some time. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Then write it on a page about Wikipedia, not here. It simply isn't notable in relation to this topic, although it might be in relation to controversies about Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Please stop repeating the same thing over and over. You are an incredibly frustrating person to work with. It is not your decision to make alone. You are not in charge. You have already voiced your opinion. If I write about the title of the movie, I will make sure it is appropriate for this article. Xkcdreader (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC) WOW! I wasn't expecting this when I made the original post! Personally, I believe it should in the least get a mention. It is relevant to the Subject at hand (Star Trek Into Darkness), it is verified by an independent (no pun intended) reliable source (The Independent). The secondary user submitted/blogs should not be used (hardly relevant considering they are mocking in nature), where as The Independent article is professional in it's nature and is highlighting the grammatical side of things. Whether or not it is suitable content for it's own section remains to be seen. In the very least though it should be highlighted in the title section, having been mentioned in a mainstream publication. MisterShiney ✉ 17:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Extra comment: WP:SUBJECT would not apply. We are saying "The Independent said XYZ about the Wikipedia discussion re the grammar of the title" (backed up with a source) and not "There was a long discussion on the Wikipedia talk page" (referencing the talk page). MisterShiney ✉ 18:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC) I think as long as whatever is added is about the grammatical issues rather than the discussions had back here I cant see any problems with it. (Which I think is what Rob was getting at). douts (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC) WP:SUBJECT does apply: "...articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves (even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself". I do think, concurring with douts, mention could be made about the grammatical oddity of the title, using the sourced article. But it should not be a jumping off point to start talking about Wikipedia. Fletcher (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC) I agree the subject should stick to the grammatical issue, and ignore the I|i. The case of the i has nothing to do with the article. I however disagree that mention of wikipedia should be avoided. The grammatical issue causes confusion and a comic was made concerning the resulting confusion and debate. Wikipedia is inherently intertwined in the issue now. A common colloquial term used to describe this is the "poster child." In talking about the confusion, wikipedia is going to come up in passing and there is nothing wrong with that. As I said before, bringing up Wikipedia will almost be required to paint a context around some quotes. Xkcdreader (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC) WP:SUBJECT absolutely would apply, and reading through WP:SUBJECT suggests it was written exactly for this type of situation. This article is about a movie. The Independent article was not discussing the movie but rather a Wikipedia article, and WP:SUBJECT is pretty clear on what means; the incident had nothing to do with the actual movie. - SudoGhost 19:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Let me try and explain my thoughts. Currently we are leaning towards including a line that says something akin to "A grammatical peculiarity in the title of the movie resulted when it was revealed that no punctuation would divide the series and episode titles, and that the Paramount marketing team was using the word Trek as a verb and Star as an adjective. This led to confusion as to the interpretation yada yada yada." Clearly I would word and source it better, but you get the point. A better sentence would include WHERE the confusion arose. We could go find less well documented forums discussing the same topic, but in this specific case, the wikipedia talk page IS the forefront of the issue. This is where the debate broke for all of the internet. It could have happened anywhere but it happened here. Everyone is now funneling here from other places (such as xkcd, daily dot to have the conversation here.) If the confusion arose in an irc chatroom we would cite that chatroom as the source. So it comes down to "what is a more encyclopedic sentence?" 'This led to confusion' or 'This led to confusion on wikipedia.' (again written in more professional language.) I can tell you right now I think the latter is a more accurate, specific sentence, and does not add any extra weight/length or unnecessary garbage to the paragraph. It is merely disclosing that the confusion was discussed is a certain place that in this instance, happened to be wikipedia. To me this is where ignore all rules and common sense come into play. We have WP:SUBJECT for this purpose, but IN THIS CASE the information we are trying to convey becomes less accurate and somewhat dishonest. It is kind of stupid to say "the irregular title led to confusion" and then cite some lesser source as oppose to the journalism that has resulted from the debate itself. I hope I am articulating why I think avoiding the mention of wikipedia makes the sentence MORE of a weasel sentence or cop out (because .. WHERE did the debate takeplace? The answer adds to the topic. If people want more information, they will know where to look.) It doesn't make sense to me to provide less information to comply with a rule, when providing more information makes the statement more powerful and accurate. Am I explaining my self clearly? Xkcdreader (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Here's where I'm confused...why do you think WP:SUBJECT shouldn't apply here, since it's entire purpose is specifically for incidents exactly like this? There's nothing different about this incident, except for the fact that it's currently happening. The fact that Wikipedia is a bit WP:LAME sometimes should perhaps go somewhere, but not in an article about a movie, since the subject of The Independent was Wikipedia itself, not the movie. - SudoGhost 19:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC) OK so I am not wording it clearly. Let me try and come up with another way to explain it. I am not trying to write a big paragraph about the wikipedia issue. I just think the context of how the situation arose is necessary to clearly explain the subject. The subject of the Independent article does not matter to me, IF the article itself discusses the grammatical issue (the daily dot does a better job but whatever.) In the meantime, food for thought. - If this debate broke out on foxnews.com, and cnn covered the event, would there be any problem citing where it happened? Xkcdreader (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC) If foxnews.com couldn't get itself straight, then that would be an issue with foxnews.com, and since the subject of the theoretical CNN article would be foxnews.com's issue, would be appropriate at the Fox News Channel article, not at an article about a movie. - SudoGhost 20:05, 1 February ok maybe I can explain it this way, maybe not. The xkcd comic discusses the title of the movie and the wikipedia debate. The daily dot article discusses the interpretation of the title of the movie and the wikipedia debate. If I am writing about the title of the movie these are going to be some of my sources. I am not trying to cover the debate as an event, but it comes up when covering the topic of the debate. The debate was about the structure of the sentence, and the paragraph is about the structure of the sentence. If all the sources analyze the wikipedia debate, what is the purpose of selectively leaving out some of the information just to comply with the rule? Is that any clearer? I am having trouble explaining that the topic of the debate itself is the same thing as the topic of the paragraph. So sources covering the debate will be used to illustrate the topic which itself is appropriate for the article. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC) If I'm understanding you right, I dont see a problem with it myself, but why dont you draft what you plan on adding and post it here first, then we can see exactly what your suggesting? douts (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Ok I am glad we are good so far. Now to take it one step further. It seems people are ok having a sentence explaining there is controversy surrounding the interpretation of the title. If a thesis is "controversy erupted concerning the grammatical structure of the title" can the source cited for this statement be the xkcd comic itself, or the daily dot article? The xkcd comic is documenting the controversy. The comic is fact. Debate over the title did erupt, because it IS confusing. The forty thousand words with no clear answer is PROOF itself that the title is confusing. The Daily Dot article articulates that the topic is confusing, but in doing so mentions the wikipedia debate. The fact that debate did occurred on wikipedia is irrelevant, but there is no pressing NEED to leave it out. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC) I understand what you're trying to say, but to make a small correction: the xkcd comic discusses the title of the article, and the daily dot article discusses the article. The movie itself happens to be the subject of that article, and that's why WP:SUBJECT very clearly and specifically addresses this; this article is about the movie, the article is not about reaction to or discussion about the article, therefore it's inappropriate to turn this article into commentary about the article itself. - SudoGhost 20:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC) I understand the desire not to be self referential. I think the conflict arises because the title was confusing but the PRIME example of the confusion is the wikipedia debate. There are other examples but they are nowhere near as well documented or cohesively organized. Noen of the other confusion debates had comics written about them. Personally, it feels as if wikipedia editors are being a little egotistical and saying "this is our debate, we started it" when reality it is just they carried it on way too long. It would be possible to cover the confusion without mentioning wikipedia, but it would be BEST to cover the model example of the confusion and mention the largest documented conversation about the confusion we have, which is the wikipedia debate. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC) This article is about a movie. Everything, and I mean everything you've mentioned as far as sources and such have been about an article; not the movie. Therefore, WP:SUBJECT makes it very clear that what you're trying to put into the article absolutely does not belong on the article. There may be another article where this would be appropriate, but this article isn't it. It doesn't matter that the article just happens to be about the movie, every article is about something, and that's exactly why we have WP:SUBJECT, and you still haven't explained why you feel this would be some special exception when it is exactly the kind of thing that WP:SUBJECT covers, and is no different than any other thing that would be covered by the MoS in that regard. To clarify what you've been saying: "The xkcd comic is documenting the controversy." About the article. Not the movie. This is the exact reason why WP:SUBJECT exists, to distinguish between the subject and the article itself. When sources discuss the article, it is irrelevant to the subject and does not belong in an article about the subject itself, because the article is not the subject of the article, that is a self-reference. - SudoGhost 20:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC) It doesn't matter what the comic is about. It is completely irrelevant that the topic is wikipedia. The comic does prove that controversy over the grammatical structure of the title exists. Xkcdreader (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC) That's not how Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. If we could use that line of logic, WP:SUBJECT wouldn't exist, as it would have no purpose. It absolutely matters what the comic and the sources are about; that's the entire point. The controversy exists on the Wikipedia article. The sources are about the Wikipedia article. There is no controversy outside of the Wikipedia article. Without mentioning the Wikipedia article there is no controversy, because the controvery is the Wikipedia article, and with no controversy there's nothing to mention in the article. So either way, there's no justification for adding such content to the article. - SudoGhost 21:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC) I don't think anyone has a problem with using a reference to the Wikipedia debate when talking about the "confusion" over the title. The question is - would people be talking about the title at all if it weren't for the Wikipedia discussion, because if not then we're being self-referential (debate on Wikipedia but nowhere else -> news outlets ostensibly cover grammar of title, but only because of Wikipedia debate -> Wikipedia includes cover of grammar that only appeared because of Wikipedia debate) does that make sense? There is some evidence that a debate over the title occurred before the Wikipedia debate i.e. in this article: http://www.blastr.com/2012/09/star-trek-2-gets-an-offic.php but I don't know if it's enough of an issue that it should be cited in the Title section more than what's already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.8.73 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Ctrl+f this page and type in 'verb' sans quotes. http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/paramount-hangs-a-title-star-trek-into-darkness-is-next-enterprise-voyage/ You will see that on September 10th at 10:39am people were already discussing the punctuation and noun/verbiness of the structure. I believe that is early enough to prove the confusion erupted organically and independently of wikipeida. People were talking about this RIGHT AWAY. It discussion just culminated here, because it was not resolved until the comic came out. That should answer the question of if it would have been discussed without the debate here. Hell, this deadline article itself can be cited as one of the "confusion erupted" sources. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Wow, that looks a lot of arguing. Unfortunately I haven’t been following it today, so I’ll just give this opinion before I embark on reading it with apologies if this has already been suggested and/or dismissed: This article should not report on itself, but it absolutely should make use of the published information and opinions about the title. It isn’t relevant to the movie whether Wikipedia had an aneurysm over its title, but the interpretation of the title is relevant. —Frungi (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC) You can probably just read the last couple discussions, the rest of it was just talking in circles and getting nowhere. The gist of my point is that mentioning wikipedia doesnt automatically make the sentence ABOUT wikipedia. If the claim is going to be made that confusion resulted, the PRIME example of the confusion is the wikipedia debate. There is no bigger, longer, more verbose version of the debate. So why not just cite the documentation of the best one that made it into the papers? "The grammatical structure of the title within the context of previous series titles became so confusing massive debate erupted over how to interpret the title itself." Xkcdreader (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC) The reverse is true, in fact. Mentioning the movie doesn't automatically make the sentence ABOUT the movie. The subject of those sources is without question the article on Wikipedia, not the movie. - SudoGhost 20:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) But does it need to mention WIkipedia? I think it might be enough to cite the same articles and focus on the parts where they focus on the title, because that’s what’s inarguably relevant here. On a side note, this discussion seems to be mostly dominated by two editors, and it would be nice to get some other perspectives, either for or against. —Frungi (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC) What makes the sentence about the movie is how you construct it, not what the source topic is. I could be writing about bunnies and cite an article about vikings which covers the relationship between vikings and bunnies. Xkcdreader (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC) But in this case, there is no relationship to speak of because the bunnies don’t care about the Vikings and the Vikings haven’t done anything to the bunnies. (And wow, there’s something I never imagined I’d say.) Independent sources reported on how the title should be capitalized and interpreted. No need to detail the fact that Wikipedia provoked them. —Frungi (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Are you suggesting that these two articles are about the movie, and not about the Wikipedia article dispute? You can frame the sentence to be about the movie, but the sources themselves are about the article, and that's what matters: what sources say, not how we can manage to fit it in where it doesn't belong, when the sources and the MoS make it clear that it doesn't belong. Frungi, those sources are about the Wikipedia article, not the movie. If a sentence were framed that tried to cleverly avoid that, it would be cherry-picking the sources to fit their desired content, as opposed to what the sources actually said. We're not playing minesweeper here; if you have to try to skirt around the word Wikipedia and omit content to try to justify adding such content to an article, it doesn't belong on the article. Independent sources reported on the Wikipedia article's issues, without that, why would "Sources say the title of the movie should be capitalized" need to go into the article? - SudoGhost 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Disagree. If a source has information that’s relevant to the movie (or whatever subject) even if it’s not the main focus of the source, then that information may be included in an article about that movie. And I’m not of the opinion that we need to avoid any mention of Wikipedia; I just believe it may not be necessary, and the article can discuss the title of the movie because it’s the title of the movie. —Frungi (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Please close this section. Approaching 10,000 words talking about nothing. Do you realize that? It's a discussion about whether to include mention in the article about the discussion on Wikipedia about whether to capitalize the letter 'i' in the title of the article. Is that not sheer madness? Consider, for a moment, a sane reader. By sane, I mean someone who would immediately close their browser after looking at this talk page, and possibly unplug their computer. What useful information is being proposed that will benefit the sane reader? Yes, the title of the film is semantically odd. So what? Anyone can see that just looking at it. Do we have any interesting to add about the film that does not diverge into some meta-discussion or analysis of grammatical nuance that no one even cares about? If not, then close the discussion. Fletcher (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC) It’s about whether to include information on the grammar and capitalization of the title, in my view. Wikipedia just happened to be involved in provoking some sources to give that information. —Frungi (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC) What information? Anything useful? You can add sourced comments that the lack of a colon makes the title strange or ambiguous; I thought about adding a comment like that, but it felt jejune. Like saying the confusing title is confusing. Maybe I'm wrong, but don't think people are focusing on making the article interesting and relevant for the general reader. More like they are caught up in the debate. It happens to me too, but sometimes it's good to step away. Surely an article about a sci-fi action movie should have very little commentary about grammar, if any. Fletcher (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC) The references that have been offered to argue for including a section about this editorial dispute in the article itself do not merit such a mention, as per WP:NAVEL. At best it's trivia. Nightscream (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC) External attention to this talk page and the title capitalisation decision deserves mention primarily at Wikipedia in culture. If it sticks there, then there should be discrete link to it from this article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC) At very least, I think there should be a sentence in amongst there somewhere. Even if it's only a sentence, and even if it's not added until after release, I think it has a place. It's becoming more noticed in the wider media that we've caused such a fuss. As SmokeyJoe says, there's grounds for it to be in Wikipedia in Culture, and there should be something on the STID page noting that. For that reason, I support inclusion of some sort. drewmunn talk 18:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed "Title" Section

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On September 10th, 2012, Paramount confirmed the film's title would read Star Trek Into Darkness. J. J. Abrams had previously gone on record saying that unlike the original series' Trek films and yet in line with The Next Generation film series, his film would not include a number in the title. This decision was made to avoid repeating the sequel numbering that started with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan or making a confusing jump from Star Trek to Star Trek 12. In an interview with MTV, Star Trek writer and producer Damon Lindelof addressed the team's struggle to solidify a title. In discussing the matter he stated "there have been more conversations about what we're going to call it than went into actually shooting it at this point." "There’s no word that comes after the colon after Star Trek that’s cool," "Not that Star Trek: Insurrection or First Contact aren’t good titles, it’s just that everything that people are turned off about when it comes to Trek is represented by the colon." The movie's co-writers kept a running email chain of every potential proposed title, including many joke titles. Of those, Lindelof preferred "Star Trek: Transformers 4" best "because it's technically available." The title's lack of punctuation and grammatical ambiguity caused widespread confusion among the media and Trek fanbase, stirring discussion concerning the ramifications of interpreting the title's morphology, syntax, orthography, and catena structure. Comparisons were drawn between the unique grammatical structure of Star Trek Into Darkness and The Empire Strikes Back. Both publications and users across the Internet alike immediately questioned if "Trek was now a verb" and consequently if Into Darkness was no longer an implied subtitle to the series title Star Trek, but instead instead part of the larger noun phrase Trek Into Darkness. Jen Yamato of Movieline added that "it sounds like Step Into Liquid and Step Up 2 The Streets, which makes me think Chris Pine and Co. are headed for a dance-off with outer space surfers to the music of a British glam rock band. On top of that, dropping the colon forces us to comprehend "Trek" as both a noun and a verb, which makes my brain hurt. Who wants to go Star Trekkin' with J.J. Abrams?" Furthering the issue was Paramount's use of the movie title as a declarative phrase in its marketing synopsis, which began "In Summer 2012, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thrill that takes Star Trek Into Darkness." Simon Pegg commented on the movie's title saying "How do you get past the curse of the ":"? You get rid of it altogether. Trek ain't a noun, it's a verb. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS MAY 2013" The sheer verbosity of the debate over the lexical parsing of the title, and more specifically a lack of resolution concerning the orthography of the movie title, became the satirized target of author and former NASA roboticist Randall Munroe. In his webcomic xkcd titled 'Star Trek into Darkness', he lampooned the fact that various interpretations of the movie title had spawned over forty thousand words of futile deliberation on Wikipedia alone. One Wikipedia user even commented on absurdity of the resulting situation by stating it had become "a discussion about whether to include mention in the article about the discussion on Wikipedia, about whether to capitalize the letter 'i' in the title of the article. Is that not sheer madness?" The continuing confusion resulting from the title's grammatical ambiguity was further covered by news organizations worldwide. The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate over the title's semantic interpretation already spanned over two months and had become "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention from which no common sense can escape." In fact, evidence of widespread confusion regarding the syntax, morphology, and orthography of the title was already evident on TrekMovie.com when they broke the unconfirmed title on September 7th, thus dating the birth of the conversation to nearly six months prior to Randall Munroe's comical parody. Morris recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title." I personally believe the previous text is encyclopedic, well sourced, accurate, neutral, brief, relevant, bizarre, lighthearted, and of interest to the casual reader. I firmly attest that random person could pick up this paragraph and fully understand the information being conveyed without requiring additional context and without being bombarded by irrelevant information It stays on topic (which is the movie title and resulting confusion regarding its lexical interpretation.) Xkcdreader (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC) References Ooh, a new thing to argue about! Let the games begin! RAP (talk) 5:14 2 February 2013 (UTC) I'm surprised you didn't cite http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/594/02/. FallingGravity (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC) haha, I avoided mentioning the i|I debate, because I find it irrelevant. The crux of the debate was whether Trek was a verb or if Into Darkness was a subtitle. The i|I feud was just a symptom of the larger confusion. If people think it is appropriate I could write an additional paragraph breaking down the correct catena structure when the title is used as a declarative statement. However, I am not sure if it counts as original research. If a newspaper wrote that 53% of a pie was eaten, it it fair for me to write about how 47% was not eaten? If a math book declares that 1+1=2, can I write that 2-1=1? Because we can use logic to deduce the structure of the catena, but I can't cite a source for it because it's common sense. If Into is a compound directional spatial preposition, Trek must be a verb, thus 'Trek Into' is by definitions a Verb Phrase. 'Trek Into Darkness' would logically become the Noun Phrase, in the same way "a walk in the woods" is a Noun Phrase. Maybe a linguistics expert could chime in and tell us if 'Trek Into Darkness' could qualify as a Verb Phrase. (Which would make star an adverb, which according to the dictionary is unprecedented.) On the other hand, 'Trek Into Darkness' could be a command the same way "walk into the woods" is a command! ... Anyway. If for the sake of temporary argument 'Trek Into Darkness' is a Noun Phrase. Noun Phrases are modified by adjectives, which makes Star an adjective, and yada yada we have our lexical tree. bada bing bada boom Xkcdreader (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Support I actually think this is very encyclopedic, interesting, and informative, enough so that I'm now convinced that the lack of a colon is very intentional and correct (whereas I was previously on the pro-colon side). I was not aware that the studio themselves had been hand-wringing over the title and how to avoid putting a colon in it, nor that this was being covered outside of Wikipedia before it even became an issue here, but Xkcdreader gives a pretty comprehensive overview of it here that I think deserves placement in the article. (And for the record, I think talking at any length about this debate we had here over capitalization does not deserve placement in the article, but the brief mention in the context of xkcd's coverage of the issue seems fine). --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Support I don't see any major problems with this. douts (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Oppose This is a joke. The Wikipedia debate was NOT about subtitle/not subtitle/verb etc. It was about whether or not to capitalise "into" according to real world use and official sources and what policies/guidelines to follow. It therefore has no place being mentioned in an article about a FILM. The wider coverage given to the title in general by other sites is also, in my opinion, not worthy of inclusion in the article. The article should provide a general overview of the film for the layman and I personally don't think that most people give a flying fart about the fact that Trekkies' worlds were turned upside down by the lack of a colon. Its silly and irrelevant. Additionally, the debate blew up because a tiny minority of over-zealous Wiki-guardians of certain guidelines obdurately stonewalled everyone else and I would rather that we didn't publicise it any further on reputational grounds. Please drop this. Nsign (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I think you are wrong. First: The very first page to release the title had 2500! comments about the title. Scroll down the page and read them. http://trekmovie.com/2012/09/07/exclusive-title-chose-for-star-trek-sequel/ How many are about the verbing of Trek or the lack of punctuation? A substantial portion of the discussion was concerning those two issues. Most of the discussion concerning the title, independent of wikipedia, was about the unconventional nature of the title structure. I can keep finding more and more sources that show the same discussion across the internet from BEFORE the debate even started on wikipedia. The source I am using is September 7th! Second: The unofficial recap of the debate is MOSTLY covering the issues I discussed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frungi/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_capitalization While it resulted in a debate about the i, the actual contention was the verbing/punctuation-removal and the implications. Third: Even if you believe the confusion part is unimportant, the first two of four paragraphs I wrote are SPECIFICALLY about the title and not the confusion. The third paragraph is about the confusion before it got to wikipedia. Why do you oppose the first 3 paragraphs? They are better than the current title section. Fourthly: protecting wikipedia's reputation is not a valid reason exclude content. Fifthly: I am not joking. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Oppose in part. I see no real problem with the first two paragraphs (assuming the references to be reliable) because they address the titling of the movie and are accredited to the creators of the film and are on topic. However it's a stretch to claim "mass confusion", this (and other wording) is sensationalising and it is outside the realms of the topic - i.e. it's not about the film, is contravening WP:SUBJECT, and is bordering on WP:FANCRUFT. It is of little importance in terms of the movie, and is putting WP:UNDUE weight on the issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Paragraph three is very well sourced including journalists discussing the verbing of Trek. It was headline news on film sites. "J.J. Abrams' Star Trek sequel gets an officially weird title" http://www.blastr.com/2012/09/star-trek-2-gets-an-offic.php "Star Trek Sequel May Have a Title, But Nobody Knows What It Means" http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2012/09/10/star-trek-sequel-may-have-a-title-but-nobody-knows-what-it-means/ These articles are discussing that the title is confusing. The article that broke the story includes the text "Also noted in our earlier article, the title (by design) does not include a colon." I think you are trivializing something that was bigger news than you think it was. This discussion occurred across the internet, not just on wikipedia. If it wasn't a big deal it wouldn't have spawned a SIX MONTH debate over if it was a subtitle or partial phrase with a verb. Furthermore this comes down to "does it make the article better?" Would your average movie fan read this article and say "oh that was interesting" or "hey that was kinda fun, im glad I read this" or would they say "man that really didn't belong in this article." It bothers me that you are deciding what people should be interested in, instead of letting them do it themselves. Adding brief information (a couple sentences) is not undue weight. It is not a book, it is a blurb. Undue weight implies the position that the title was weird was a minority position. I don't see any sites saying "this new title isn't weird." The fact that the title was confusing was the mainstream opinion. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Rob, I don't see how you can think it violates WP:SUBJECT when its about the title of the film, and therefore by extension is about the film. You might have a point about WP:FANCRUFT but it's a bit presumptuous to try to predict what people will find interesting or not. Also, as above, I would think a 6 month continuous debate across several sites would be notable enough to be mentioned. douts (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I will concede the second half is approaching WP:FANCRUFT. On the surface it appears trivial. But the fact that the series has NEVER used a title this way is notable, and multiple online news agencies agreed. It is closer to trivia, but this article does not have a trivia section, so the title section is most appropriate. I think that anyone who is viewing the Star Trek Into Darkness article will find it interesting to know that the name is unique to the series and contentious among the fanbase. I think it is notable enough to warrant mention. An extra couple sentences that some people find uninteresting won't collapse wikipedia's roof. It doesnt make the article worse. Plus, it is at the bottom of the article. The rules are all guidelines, and in this case the topic is interesting to enough people that the conversation is still going. I don't know how you could make the argument that no one cares, because it seems EVERYONE cares. I am almost always of the opinion that wikipedia should err on the side of verboseness rather than brevity. What one person finds interesting isn't what another person finds interesting. The criteria for inclusion shouldn't be based on the most stringent adherence to every rule. Finally, fancruft is generally poorly written and poorly cited, neither of which apply in this case. What I have written is notable fact with documentation to back it up. Xkcdreader (talk) As far as WP:SUBJECT and Rob's "it's not about the film" argument, it is completely normal to include events related to a movie, that didn't effect the movie itself. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Shooting_in_Aurora.2C_Colorado That article even goes way off tangent and even covers the Gangster Squad Trailer. Please tell me what the Gangster Squad trailer being removed has to do with TDKR itself. Just because this debate took place on the internet and not in a IRL location such as time square, does not mean it didn't happen and shouldn't be recorded. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Comment - That fact that you guys are arguing over what we were arguing about tells you that putting anything like this into the article is a silly idea that will only serve to make Wikipedia look even more ridiculous than it already does. This has not received "significant media coverage" by any conceivable definition of the phrase, so even if the section had some merit it would normally be excluded per WP:WEIGHT. The appropriate talk page header already notes what coverage there was, and there is no need to go any further than that. This article is about the film. Don't make it about Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC) The morphology and syntax of the title received widespread coverage across the Internet (and probably in Print. Does anyone have that issue of Entertainment Weekly from the 2nd/3rd week of September 2012?) prior to the debate picking up on Wikipedia. I have already provided six credible sources in paragraph three that discuss the issue. How many more do I need? How wikipedia looks is irrelevant to the issue and in fact wreaks of censorship. Paragraph 4 (the only paragraph to even mention the wikipedia debate) only says "was further covered by news organizations worldwide" which is fully accurate and sourced with coverage in London, England; Milan, Italy; and wherever Kevin Morris lives. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Scjessey, what we're suggesting IS NOT ABOUT WIKIPEDIA. It IS about the confusion the unconventional title has caused! The only reason wikipedia is even mentioned in the suggestion above is because it is one of several prime examples of said confusion. As Xkcdreader said, discussion about the title began long before the discussion here. The mere fact that people are still discussing it now, 6 months after it was announced is testament to that confusion. douts (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC) douts I want to thank you for actually reading what I am saying. It feels like almost every other point people are making is some straw man that is completely irrelevant to my point. You're like the only person so far to acknowledge it isn't about Wikipedia. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC) There's no confusion about the title at all. It is "Star Trek Into Darkness" and that was never disputed by anyone. The studio debate about having or not having a colon is already covered in the article, and that is fine. The Wikipedia-related problem was that such a title caused an issue when MOS:CT was applied. That's about Wikipedia, not the film. And despite claims to the contrary, media coverage about the Wikipedia fuss is pathetic and unremarkable. So this needs to be dropped right now, because it's stupid. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC) The fact that you believe this is a testament to the likely fact you have yet to read a single source I cited backing up that claim. I cited six external pages, that predate the wikipedia debate, and make the claim that the title is confusing Xkcdreader (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Mostly oppose. It appears that there was some significant media coverage on the points that this film's title is a break from tradition, with some joking and speculation about its meaning and grammar. And this ambiguity did lead to the current Wikipedia kerfuffle and its media coverage. All this might merit a sentence in the "Title" section. But this campaigning by Xkcdreader strikes me increasingly as more provocative and pointy than productive. Bradd (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC) The original issue was bullheaded moderators using arbitrary rules to prevent anything from happening, and when I stand up against further blockades my "campaigning" for change makes you oppose. That makes me want to say fuck this place. You should be judging the content, not my pursuit of cultural change. This is the opposite of Be Bold/Boldly Go :(Xkcdreader (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Dude. You really need to </stress>. You are behaving like an SPA and apparently have become a little obsessed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Yea I put together a contingency plan so that a full version can be linked to from #title. That was the exact advice I received from people. "It doesn't belong here." So I put it somewhere else. And now I'm criticized for that too? This goes so far against Be Bold, it isn't funny. The page is locked and I create a relevant well sourced paragraph and I can't be bold. The entire purpose of Be Bold is to take risks and then revert them if they severely break the rules. Everyone opposing this needs to reread Wikipedia:BITEY Xkcdreader (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC) My wish to keep this out of the article due to concerns about reputational damage are, I'm well aware, probably not supportable by any policy here. The way this was held up due to bureaucratic and obstructive nonsense reflects badly on this project, and do any of us want that? However I will acknowledge that this isn't a good enough reason to dismiss your contribution. If this HAS to be mentioned then it at least needs to be much shorter - cut those paragraphs down to a single one. Its an interesting footnote to the film, nothing more. Nsign (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Good to hear we are getting somewhere! I agree some may find it too long. Normally things like this get a small mention and a link to a bigger article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Shooting_in_Aurora.2C_Colorado and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting. Is that a fair compromise? I cut it down for inclusion in Star Trek Into Darkness and have a unique page to discuss the issue in depth. The confusion brought on by the title will only get bigger as the movie comes closer to release. As for reputation: I think it is a sign of good character when a person (or in this case project) admits to and addresses its flaws head on, instead of obscuring them from visibility. Transparency is valuable and admirable. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC) No, we are not "getting somewhere" at all. There are two separate issues here. The studio debate about what the title should be (notable), and the subsequent Wikipedia debate over whether or not to apply MOS:CT (not notable). The former relates to the film and should be covered. The latter relates to Wikipedia and has no place here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I am not addressing you hear, (you are not part of the "we") please don't disrupt my conversation with other people. Start your own bullet if you have something to add that has not been said. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Yes that's a fair compromise. But it definitely needs to be dramatically shorter. Nsign (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC) can do, I will cut it way down Xkcdreader (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC) What is already in the article is fine. Perhaps a single extra sentence would be okay. But it must not be about the Wikipedia debate because that had nothing to do with the film. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed "Title" Section: Take Two

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The previous suggestion went through considerable change as it was discussed. In the process it outgrew the appropriate length. Everyone seems to agree that even if it is appropriate for wikipedia, it was no longer appropriate for the page in its current form. Main article: Grammatical and orthographical interpretations of the movie title Star Trek Into Darkness On September 10th, 2012, Paramount confirmed the film's title as Star Trek Into Darkness. J. J. Abrams indicated that unlike the The Original Series films and yet in line with The Next Generation film series, his second Star Trek film would not include a number in the title. The decision was made to avoid repeating the sequel numbering that started with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan or making a confusing jump from Star Trek to Star Trek 12. Writer and producer Damon Lindelof addressed the team's struggle to settle upon a title, stating "there have been more conversations about what we're going to call it than went into actually shooting it." "There’s no word that comes after the colon after Star Trek that’s cool, ... not that Star Trek: Insurrection or First Contact aren’t good titles, it’s just that everything that people are turned off about when it comes to Trek is represented by the colon." Of the email chain co-writers kept containing every potential title, including many joke titles, Lindelof preferred Star Trek: Transformers 4 best "because it's technically available." The title's grammatical ambiguity and lack of colon caused several months of discussions concerning the stylistic intent of the title's authors along with examinations of various possible grammatical interpretations of the title's orthography and constituent structure. People questioned if "Trek was now a verb," and consequently, if Into Darkness was no longer an implied subtitle to the series title Star Trek but instead part of the noun phrase Trek Into Darkness. Compounding the ambiguity was Paramount's unprecedented use of the movie title as a declarative phrase in its initial marketing synopsis which began: In Summer 2012, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thrill that takes Star Trek Into Darkness. On the issue of the movie title's constituent structure, star Simon Pegg dictated "How do you get past the curse of the ":"? You get rid of it altogether. Trek ain't a noun, it's a verb. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS MAY 2013" The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate over the title's semantic interpretation spanned months and had become "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention from which no common sense can escape." Morris recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title." I personally believe the previous text is encyclopedic, well sourced, accurate, neutral, brief, relevant, bizarre, lighthearted, and of interest to the casual reader. I firmly attest that a random person could pick up this paragraph and fully understand the information being conveyed without requiring additional context and without being bombarded by irrelevant information It stays on topic of the movie title and resulting confusion regarding its lexical interpretation. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC) References I removed the following two lines because they appear to be too controversial to reach consensus, even though I believe they add context and insight to the paragraph. The verbosity of a debate revolving around the orthography of the movie title became the satirized target of webcomic author Randall Munroe. Evidence of confusion regarding the syntax, morphology, and orthography of the title was present on TrekMovie.com immediately after they published the unconfirmed title on September 7th, thus dating the birth of the conversation to nearly six months prior to Randall Munroe's comical parody. The first two paragraphs are interesting. Some stuff could be salvaged, but there would be WP:WEIGHT concerns because of having so much written about such a little issue. The "grammatical ambiguity" stuff is all navel-gazing bollocks. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC) The grammatical ambiguity is well cited. See sources 6, 7, 8, 9 10 in the reference section above. WP:WEIGHT does not apply, because no minority viewpoint is being represented. Xkcdreader (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC) What part of WP:SUBJECT isn't sinking in here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC) This section does not breech WP:SUBJECT. Every single sentence is about the movie title and its lexical interpretation. Every single sentence has the word title in it. Every single sentence applies to the section. Xkcdreader (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC) My previous comment has been deleted by someone - please do NOT do this on a talk page. It is still far too long. This should be a footnote to the article. One brief paragraph is sufficient. Nsign (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC) If you believe too much is written about the subject, let me justify it. 3 sentences are spent on the title itself. 5 sentences describe the history behind the formation of the title. 2 sentences describe confusing nature of the title. 2 sentences cite how the title is used by people related to the project. 4 sentences are used to describe the resulting chaos resulting from the use of a confusing title. 10/16 sentences are directly from people related to the project, and 6/16 concern journalists covering the title. Xkcdreader (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Its still too much - this is nothing more than a footnote to the film of possible interest to readers. There is no need for this level of detail. Nsign (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Yes there is. To quote the producer "There have been more conversations about what we're going to call it than went into actually shooting it." If they spent that much time coming up with it, 10 sentences describing it, and 6 illustrating the public reaction to it is perfectly appropriate. The information cannot be conveyed in less sentences. Where is this "its good enough" policy you are invoking? It is more interesting, more insightful, and more appropriate for an encyclopedia if the story is not truncated. Plus you have a publicly stated conflict of interest. You have already said, in this document no less, you want to suppress relevant information because it paints wikipedia's users in a less than positive light. Furthermore, the xkcd comic and the daily dot article are virtually required or the entire section falls apart. Paragraphs 1-3 rely on primary sources when it comes to citing confusion over the title, xkcd/dailydot are the secondary sources documenting the confusion the title causes. It would be irresponsible to fill the paragraph with only primary sources as per Wikipedia:No_original_research Xkcdreader (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC) The art department might have spent weeks deciding on the poster. The composer probably spent months writing the score. The costume dept will have spent weeks on the costumes. That doesn't mean we need a 4 bullet point section for each one. The issue here is whether it is relevant and adds something to the article. I've already agreed that it probably does. And I have no "conflict of interest". I've stated my personal opinion on how much light we should shine on this mess but will happily acknowledge this isn't supported by any policy and therefore I'm not forcing it. I just think that this information comprises too much space for what is ultimately a trivial issue in relation to the film as a whole. Nsign (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC) There is no space shortage. It is interesting, relevant, accurate, cited information. 16 sentences is about as brief as you can describe what previously took 40 thousand.Xkcdreader (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC) But all that previous debate was about the application of a Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline, not about the title itself. We all agreed on what the title was. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC) The previous debate existed independent of wikipedia. I have told you this quite a few times and you continue to ignore the fact. It is all cited correctly. Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 document the ambiguity of the phrases. The debate was over Trek as a Verb and Into Darkness as a subtitle. This debate was not unique to Wikipedia, nor did it begin here. Xkcdreader (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Support As written, it's encyclopedic and well-sourced, and deftly handles a discussion of the issue without putting any emphasis on the specific debate on Wikipedia. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC) You think using Wikipedia, Twitter, xkcd and no-name pop culture blogs is an example of "well-sourced"? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC) It is fact there was confusion. The "no-name pop culture blogs", their comment sections, and Simon Pegg on twitter are all primary sources. As per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." The claim that confusion existed is straightforward fact. I am not offering my personal interpretation of the issue. When I write "discussion took place about Trek as a verb" you can click the primary source and see the discussion. There is no analysis of whether the claims are true. There is no evaluation to the validity of the claims. It purely says an event happened. XKCD and The Daily Dot are both secondary sources which analyze the confusion. They are both appropriate as secondary sources. Xkcdreader (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC) You are rationalizing the madness. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Incorrect. I am documenting the phenomenon caused by the ambiguous nature of the title in an encyclopedic fashion. The fact that the movie title caused this many people to join such a stupid discussion is notable. The Daily Dot agrees as a tertiary source. Xkcdreader (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Mostly Oppose per Bradd, Scjessey and Nsign. The parts we can use are the first bullet point (already in the article) and the second, which has some decent quotes. I really oppose delving into the grammar geekery, which is not relevant to the subject matter and is of no interest to the typical reader. You're dressing it up as if there was some very serious and technical debate, but the sources are just entertainment writers casually opining on the title when it was announced. In short, comments about the film and its production are good; comments about people commenting about the film are not relevant. Fletcher (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Trek being used as a verb for the first time ever is interesting to new and lifelong trek fans alike. The sources are not just entertainment writers. Look at the comment section in each document. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of comments concerning the new implications of trek as a verb. The document that broke the story has 2500 comments alone. The substantial volume of commentary that the topic has generated across the web is testament to the fact that people find it interesting, engaging, engrossing, and worth talking about. Who are you to say trek being used as a verb is not interesting to other people? Xkcdreader (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC) It's not even "comments about people commenting about the film". It's comments about people commenting on a Wikipedia discussion about the application of a style guideline on the title of the film. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC) No matter how many times you repeat this false statement it will not become true. A summary of the conversation regarding syntax, morphology, and orthography can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frungi/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_capitalization To equivocate the conversation as only about the MOS is factually incorrect. Said summery from the Frungi was republished by The Daily Dot here http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-star-trek-into-darkness-capitalization/ making it a reputable source on the discussion. I have cited a primary, secondary, and tertiary source regarding the confusion over the ambiguous grammar of the title. This primary source http://trekmovie.com/2012/09/07/exclusive-star-trek-sequel-title-confirmed/ contains every single argument made in the Frungi summary/daily dot article as to the noun/verbness and subtitleness of the Title, and then some more. The debate was not unique to wikipedia, and in fact predated the conversation on wikipedia by existing on September 7 2012. Just because wikipedia started talking about it really loudly after the fact, does not mean it can no longer be covered in the entry. Xkcdreader (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Haha, “the Frungi”. Just noticed that and it made me laugh. But you’re mistaken—it was my first summary on this Talk page, in a subsection of a currently {{hat}}ted section, that they republished. Anyway, I don’t think it’s kosher for WIkipedia to use itself as a reference, especially not a page in userspace. —Frungi (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC) To clarify, I'm not altogether opposing a brief mention of the title being ambiguous; I'm just opposing a diversion into grammatical issues that are not topical to the article. Also, making judgments based on the number of online comments is not a reliable measure, and is not how people decide things on Wikipedia. The commenters are, by definition, those who were motivated to comment; there is no second column of people who commented that they were not interested. The self selection problem makes it notoriously difficult to know if an online group is representative of a larger population; for similar reasons you should not trust online polls. So that's one reason we stick with reliable sources. Fletcher (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I understand what you are saying. It seems we have reached consensus that the first two bullets can be added to the article. So Concerning the second and third paragraph.. At no point do I make a claim that the majority of people are involved in the debate. The words I used was widespread. This means it took place on a multitude of websites, involving users from a multitude of countries. However we want to define widespread, it is a factually correct word to use. The debate was not confined to a small area. There are 8 sentences in the 3/4th paragraphs. The analysis of the ambiguity/grammar is TWO sentences. The analysis of the resulting confusion is 3 sentences. The other 3 sentences directly relate to JJ Abrams, Simon Pegg, Marketing, and Paramount. They are ALL required to make the implied point, that the controversy was consciously and tactfully manufactured by Paramount. Each sentences is dependent on the context created by the previous. 8 extra sentences does not burden the uninterested, who will have hopefully stopped reading the TITLE section before they get to the end of the 16 sentences. The use of Trek as a verb/nosubtitle deserves 4 sentences, two about journalism/trekkers, one from Simon Pegg and one from Paramount. The mess it caused is succinctly and carefully crafted to stay neutral and on topic without mentioning wikipedia. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC) No. We have not reached a consensus on the first two bullets. What is in the article already is sufficient, though it is possible that a few elements of those two points can be considered. But the vast majority of what you have written is wholly inappropriate for the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Support as this is NOT about wikipedia so WP:SUBJECT is NOT being violated. This is about the confusion and discussion caused by the oddness of the title which (as I've said several times now, PRE-DATES THE WIKIPEDIA DEBATE!). Also, Scjessey are you deliberately being obtuse and ignoring the fact that discussion over the oddness of the title began long before the debate on wikipedia? Or have you just gone temporarily blind? Cos it's becoming extremely annoying to be repeatedly ignored. douts (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I have repeatedly stated above that I believe that the first two points made by Xkcdreader have some merit (although most of that is already satisfactorily covered in the article), just not the Wikipedia-related crap that follows. So are you being deliberately obtuse or blind? This is the second time you have misrepresented my comments and position, douts. You need to focus on the article, not the editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC) To clarify your point on WP:SUBJECT. The subject of this Paragraph is the MOVIE TITLE. The entry shouldn't be about the movie, it needs to be about the MOVIE TITLE. Every sentence I wrote DIRECTLY references the movie title, usually by using the word title itself. Xkcdreader (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC) OPPOSE - Just to clarify my position (because some editors obviously need some help with that), I oppose the inclusion of all this extra crap in the article. Most of it is extremely poorly sourced (despite many claims to the contrary). We don't use Twitter, Wikipedia, webcomics or random insignificant blogs as sources for anything on this project. This proposed addition attempts to make a real mountain out of the holographic image of a molehill. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Once again, you fail to grasp the concept of guidelines being flexible. Simon Pegg's verified Twitter account is reliable in the context of this movie, since he is directly involved in it and knows a bucket load more about than any of us do. Also, for the last time, the ONLY mention of wikipedia in the 3rd nd 4th paragraphs is simply to illustrate the point about the unconventionalness of the title caused substantial amounts of discussion across many media - the vast majority of which predates the entire discussion here. douts (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Discounting the personal attacks, you can't have poorly sourced primary documents. They are primary documents. They exist. Their quality is irrelevant. You are running around with your fingers in your ears yelling "nananana" and refusing to even attempt comprehension of what people are explaining to you. To quote Wikipedia:Notability if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. I cited seven news agencies covering the initial issue, there was significant coverage. I ahave also demonstrated it was not a short term interest, because the conversation about it lasted six months. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Largely oppose, though I find it is quite an interesting read. I think some of this information belongs in this article, but frankly, it seems far too long as is. It definitely doesn’t deserve its own article. —Frungi (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC) OpposeAfter much consideration and shock at how this whole can of worms got started I have decided that although some of the information might be worth a mention, it doesn't require a while section. MisterShiney ✉ 23:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Does the second paragraph look well reported to you? I am a little disappointed that you would change your mind, just because I defend my ideas when they are dismissed and shot down. The addition makes the article better not worse, it should be included on that basis alone. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Comment: When did Wikipedia:TOO_LONG! and Good Enough as it Is start to take precedent over Wikipedia:Be_bold? This suggestion is WAY under the guiding limit suggested by Wikipedia:Article_size. It confuses me that people are championing "adequate as it is" over additional interesting information. 16 sentences is not an overly verbose number, especially when 10 of them are direct quotes from people directly related to the production of the movie itself. To everyone in the "too long" camp check out Wikipedia:Abundance_and_redundancy As a rule; if the material is factual, and if it's not entirely irrelevant to the topic, it should not be excluded. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Speaking for myself, it just feels too long in my personal opinion. Too many words devoted to a relatively minor subject in an article about the movie as a whole—in other words, WP:UNDUE. Like I said, I feel some of that information definitely belongs in the article, but in a summarized form. But if you want to be bold, go ahead and add it in. Sounds like it’d get reverted, though. —Frungi (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Also, “it should not be excluded” is not the same thing as “it should be included.” —Frungi (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I removed what seem to be the two most controversial lines. Will you reread it and suggest which sentences you think still DON'T add to the article? As I explained a couple times before WP:UNDUE does not apply. WP:UNDUE refers to minority positions. The ambiguous nature of the title is not a minority held belief, thus WP:UNDUE is irrelevant. Xkcdreader (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I rather suggest a rewrite to make it more concise. And you should read the rest of WP:UNDUE, particularly: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. —Frungi (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I have rewritten it. Let's only talk about paragraph 2. 2 sentences are devoted to the public reaction to the title, 2 sentences are devoted to clarification front the star trek team itself, and 1 sentence references the storm the title caused, and 1 sentence is analysis of the marketing teams intentions. Are you in good faith telling me 6 sentences is undue weight for a discussion that lasted six months without a resolution? How can you possibly rewrite the TWO sentences which state "the title's release was met with confusion, and this is why" into less without removing substantial meaning. How are two sentences undue weight to something that received substantial coverage? Xkcdreader (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Well, none of your cited sources mention the words “orthography” or “catena”, so I don’t know if that could be an issue of WP:NOR; I’d love to hear other editors’ opinions on that. Some sentences can be combined I think, and I really don’t think you need the penultimate one commenting on Wikipedia’s specific debate. —Frungi (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC) By the way, why do you insist on saying “instead instead” in your second paragraph? —Frungi (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Instead instead is probably a typo, I will check. I take some issue with bringing up “orthography” and “catena,” just because users may not be familiar with them . That is exactly why they are hyperlinked. Those are words with specific meanings. I could say punctuation instead but it would be less accurate. Orthography is the correct term for hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation. A catena is a unit of syntax and morphology. So while saying "syntax and morphology" is accurate, catena is the correct word. A loose synonym would be constituent, which I have replaced it with. What sentences can you combine? Provide an example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkcdreader (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Furthering the issue was Paramount's use of the movie title as a declarative phrase in its marketing synopsis ("[…] an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness"), and Simon Pegg's assertion that "Trek" was meant as a verb. —Frungi (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC) That is getting pretty pedantic. It is better without truncated quotes. You must understand that the reader will not have all the context we have gained through these discussions of the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkcdreader (talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC) It was just an example of shortening the text. If you disagree that that would be an improvement, then I’ll leave it for others to discuss. —Frungi (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed "Title" Section: The Final (Frontier) Take

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The previous discussion indicated a concern over an abundance of unnecessary information. Accordingly I have revised this information further with a focus on brevity. As the previous conversation was no longer in reference to the current draft, a separate discussion section is more appropriate. On September 10th, 2012, Paramount confirmed the film's title as Star Trek Into Darkness. J. J. Abrams indicated that unlike the The Original Series films and yet in line with The Next Generation film series, his second Star Trek film would not include a number in the title. The decision was made to avoid repeating the sequel numbering that started with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan or making a confusing jump from Star Trek to Star Trek 12. Writer and producer Damon Lindelof addressed his team's struggle to settle upon a title, stating "there have been more conversations about what we're going to call it than went into actually shooting it." "There’s no word that comes after the colon after Star Trek that’s cool, ... not that Star Trek: Insurrection or First Contact aren’t good titles, it’s just that everything that people are turned off about when it comes to Trek is represented by the colon." Of the email chain co-writers kept containing every potential title, including many joke titles, Lindelof preferred Star Trek: Transformers 4 best "because it's technically available." The title's seemingly grammatical ambiguity in the context of traditional use of the name Star Terk along with the lack of a demarcating colon caused several months of discussions concerning the stylistic intent of the title's authors along with examinations of various possible interpretations with respect to the title's orthography and constituent structure. People questioned if "Trek was now a verb," and consequently, if Into Darkness was no longer an implied subtitle to the series title Star Trek but instead part of the noun phrase Trek Into Darkness. Contributing to further ambiguity was Paramount's unprecedented use of the movie title as a declarative phrase in its initial marketing synopsis which began: In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness. With regard to the film's title, star Simon Pegg dictated "How do you get past the curse of the ":"? You get rid of it altogether. Trek ain't a noun, it's a verb. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS MAY 2013" The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate over the title's semantic interpretation spanned months and had become "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention from which no common sense can escape." Morris recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title." I personally believe the previous text is encyclopedic, well sourced, accurate, neutral, brief, relevant, bizarre, lighthearted, and of interest to the casual reader. I firmly attest that a random person could pick up this paragraph and fully understand the information being conveyed without requiring additional context and without being bombarded by irrelevant information It stays on topic of the movie title and resulting confusion regarding its lexical interpretation. Xkcdreader (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC) References Support still. Liked it before, this is still fine. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Since you seem to constantly tweak your text and thus dominate the Talk page history, might I suggest moving it to a user subpage to edit it there, and linking to it here? Or even transclude it with, for instance, {{User:Xkcdreader/Star Trek Into Darkness Proposed Title Section}} —Frungi (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Forgive me, I am new to contributing here. That is a good idea and I will have to figure out how to do that kind of stuff. This is looking like a final draft unless people see any typos or mistakes, so I think it would be futile for this project. Next time though. Xkcdreader (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Much better. I'd delete the final sentence of the first paragraph (do we really need to know that?) but otherwise I think that's acceptable. For the record, I'd still rather it wasn't in the article at all but if it has to be then I'd say this is fine. Nsign (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC) No it is not absolutely necessary. It is only 25 words though. It is fun piece of insight into the process of naming the movie. A tiny bit of levity never hurt anybody. I don't think the standard should be "do we absolutely need to know this" as much as "are you glad you glad you learned it?" I think others will find it interesting. If the community thinks it should go, it can go. I understand why you personally don't want it in the article but consider this: The title IS confusing to a lot of people. Where do you turn when you are confused and need information or clarification. An encyclopedia.Xkcdreader (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Support as per previous discussion. douts (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Oppose because it is absurdly, mind-numbingly verbose. This crap belongs in a blog, not on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC) What about StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs as per xkcd? On a more serious note why not flip a coin, or take it to mediation? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I do not believe this needs mediation. This is textbook be bold. I was just being courteous and more importantly using everyone criticism to make the content better. I believe I adequately addressed the most common complaints (length, subject). Only one user is vehemently opposed, and they appear incapable or unwilling to understand nuances such as the difference between primary and secondary sources. I have spent ample time defending these criticisms elsewhere (as has at least one other person) on the talk page, and the aforementioned user has chosen not to conduct the discussion in good faith. In addition, this text was redrafted more times than necessary to make as many contributors happy as possible who were uncomfortable with its verbosity (notice Nsign's position switched from "this is a joke" to "much better". Pfhorrest in his first vote of support said the text was so informative it changed his mind regarding whether the title is intentionally constructed as is. This is exactly what encyclopedias are suppose to do, inform people.) The person I am alluding to was the same person arguing that [MOS] takes precedent over common sense and common name. Scjessey seems to believe consensus means he must agree for consensus to be reached. I would suggest other users ignore these disrespectful (calling other users contributions crap) and irrelevant tangents. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC) "Consensus" is basically "broad agreement". You are to be applauded for working hard, but it has largely been a wasted effort. You have tried to make it seem as if the choice of title is a Really Big Deal that needs extensive coverage, but it really isn't. It's worth a line or two in the article at best. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC) The title is a big deal. "There have been more conversations about what we're going to call it than went into actually shooting it." How many lines does the average movie have concerning its production? In twelve sentences I have covered the title, the confusion it causes people, and the resulting conflict the confusion caused. To quote someone who actually read what I wrote without dismissing it, "As written, it's encyclopedic and well-sourced, and deftly handles a discussion of the issue without putting any emphasis on the specific debate on Wikipedia. --DavidK93" (emphasis mine) (edit conflict) While it should be classic WP:BOLD territory, and the people involved should frankly be ashamed for caring as much as they clearly do, if you've reached the point where xkcd are taking the piss out of you for a ridiculous length discussion then mediation does seem like a good idea. The only reason I can see not to take it to mediation would be if everyone is in retrospect happy with the status quo so we can stop this ridiculous discussion without further effort. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I'm sure you mean well (and thank you for restoring my comment that was deleted by Xkcdreader), but there is no need for mediation over the title. That issue has been resolved. This discussion is about whether or not to add an extensive, exhaustive, totally unnecessary exposé about the choice of title to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC) The title section sucks right now. There are other discussions on this talk page in regard to its faults. At a minimum I am putting in my first paragraph. We can debate if the last sentence of the first paragraph should be removed. I have a very hard time believing the Transformers 4 joke is overly verbose, we are talking one line of text. I can firmly say (and in good faith) consensus has been reached regarding the first five sentences. As for "the people involved" they really shouldn't have a say because there is an inherent conflict of interest. If I was involved in the original debate I would be surely want to suppress my "contribution". Xkcdreader (talk) All of it is overly verbose. Your claim of consensus (when hardly anyone has weighed in with an opinion yet) is laughable. Your derogatory comment aimed at contributors acting is good faith is disgusting. I don't care how much of a "newbie" you are (and I'm highly skeptical of that claim), I respectfully suggested you tender an apology. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC) WP:Civility WP:BITEY I am not the one calling your contributions laughable crap. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Summary of discussion (by Xkcdreader): MisterShiney: Might be worth a mention. Oppose because it is not required information. Bradd: opposes because author is increasingly more provocative and pointy than productive. (I tried to tone it down as best as possible. I don't think this is a valid reason to exclude appropriate content. Sensationalism removed.) Rob Sinden: No issue with first paragraph, second paragraph is bordering on WP:FANCRUFT, (which I acknowledge is a fair criticism.) WP:UNDUE and asked for sensationalism to be removed (and it was.) WP:SUBJECT Scjessey: The first half is interesting. WP:WEIGHT concerns. Repeatedly stated first half has merit just not the Wikipedia-related crap that follows aka WP:SUBJECT SarekOfVulcan: WP:SUBJECT douts: Support. I don't see any major problems with this, NOT about wikipedia so WP:SUBJECT is NOT being violated. Frungi: interesting but too long. (Frungi helps me reduce it) Fletcher: Supports first half, opposes discussion of grammar because it is too technical, not altogether opposing a brief mention of the title being ambiguous, opposing a diversion into grammatical issues Nsign: "My wish to keep this out of the article due to concerns about reputational damage" "Yes that's a fair compromise" and asked for further reduction. Nsign agrees it's acceptable and it is fine. Eraserhead1: Should be classic WP:BOLD territory, may need mediation. Pfhorrest: Gives a pretty comprehensive overview of it here, deserves placement in the article. David93: Encyclopedic and well-sourced, and deftly handles a discussion of the issue without putting any emphasis on the specific debate on Wikipedia. Xkcdreader: WP:Abundance_and_redundancy WP:Be_bold WP:Use_common_sense and WP:Ignore_all_rules trump WP:UNDUE. We are talking SIX sentences here, hardly a lot of weight imho. WP:SUBJECT is an invalid criticism. Every single sentence directly addresses the movie title. Consensus: Bullet 1 = Support! Bullet 2 = WP:SUBJECT WP:UNDUE / WP:WEIGHT VS NOT-WP:SUBJECT WP:BOLD WP:IAR Xkcdreader (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed "Title" Section into Darkness

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
E P I S O D E 'IV' A SECOND PROPOSAL FOLLOWS The first half this of proposal met consensus. This is an brief consolidation of previous conversation. It concerning only where consensus could not be reached. It is intended to assist mediation if necessary. Proposal Part Two: The title's seemingly grammatical ambiguity in the context of traditional use of the name Star Trek along with the lack of a demarcating colon caused several months of discussions concerning the stylistic intent of the title's authors along with examinations of various possible interpretations with respect to the title's orthography and constituent structure. People questioned if "Trek was now a verb," and consequently, if Into Darkness was no longer an implied subtitle to the series title Star Trek but instead part of the noun phrase Trek Into Darkness. Contributing to further ambiguity was Paramount's unprecedented use of the movie title as a declarative phrase in its initial marketing synopsis which began: In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness. With regard to the film's title, star Simon Pegg dictated "How do you get past the curse of the ":"? You get rid of it altogether. Trek ain't a noun, it's a verb. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS MAY 2013" The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate over the title's semantic interpretation spanned months and had become "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention from which no common sense can escape." Morris recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title." Breakdown: ONE sentence documents confusion across the web regarding the title. ONE sentence explains why people find the title confusing. TWO quotes from people directly involved in the production of the movie that fuel further ambiguity within the title's constituent structure. ONE quote from a journalist regarding the debate over ambiguous nature of the title. ONE quote from a journalist explaining his theory that the tile is a well calculated marketing tactic by J.J. Abrams designed to create controversy. ISSUE: Are SIX sentences on the ambiguous nature of the title WP:UNDUE or is it an appropriate summary for an Encyclopedia entry? MisterShiney: Might be worth a mention, oppose because it is not required information. Rob Sinden: WP:UNDUE WP:SUBJECT WP:FANCRUFT Scjessey: WP:WEIGHT WP:SUBJECT SarekOfVulcan: WP:SUBJECT douts: Support. No major problems. NOT about wikipedia so WP:SUBJECT is NOT being violated. Frungi: Interesting but too long. (the Frungi then helps reduce it) Nsign: Wishes to keep this out of the article due to concerns about reputational damage, but agrees it is acceptable. Fletcher: Opposes discussion of grammar because it is too technical, not opposing a brief mention of the title being ambiguous. Eraserhead1: Should be classic WP:BOLD territory, may need mediation. Pfhorrest: Comprehensive overview that deserves placement in the article. David93: Encyclopedic and well-sourced; deftly handles the issue without putting any emphasis on Wikipedia. Factions: OPPOSE: WP:SUBJECT & WP:UNDUE - (MisterShiney, Rob Sinden, Scjessey, SarekOfVulcan, Fletcher) SUPPORT: NOT-WP:SUBJECT & WP:BOLD & WP:IAR - (douts, Eraserhead1, Pfhorrest, David93, Xkcdreader) If you have previously weighed in there is really no need to Support/Oppose this again. Let's hear some fresh voices! SUPPORT: WP:Abundance_and_redundancy WP:Be_bold WP:Use_common_sense and WP:Ignore_all_rules trump WP:UNDUE. WP:SUBJECT is an invalid criticism due to every sentence directly addresses the movie title. Xkcdreader (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Where does it say these guidelines "trump" the other? I don't think so. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC) That part is my opinion. I invite you to explain why you think it would be the other way around. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Oppose - Still way too verbose, weasel words ("people questioned"), impenetrable language ("orthography"), low-quality sourcing (Twitter, blogs), pointless discussion about the "debate" (the Daily Dot stuff), far too many references. This is a tiny little unimportant thing that does not need a Tolstoy-like tome. That first sentence can't even be read aloud without pausing for breath around 8 times. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC) This response is in bad faith. It is purposely disruptive. The rebuttle to all these claims has already been provided ad nauseum and continually ignored. the impenetrable language ("orthography") has a hyperlink to its definition. Orthography compliments grammar and means hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation. Just because you did not know a word does not mean it is not the BEST word to use. primary sources by definition are not high or low quality. They just exist. You are not allowed to make any interpretation. You may only state what they are. Simon Pegg's twitter account is veritably him. It is no different than a person speaking to a microphone on television. The "blogs" are also primary sources documenting what was written. The Daily Dot article is arguably required by Wikipedia's standards. It is the secondary or tertiary source. You are a college instructior, why am I still explaining the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources? This is why I believe the editor I am replying to is acting in bad faith. It has been explained to him countless times that they are primary sources, and he still attempts to qualify them as "low quality." I explicitly asked for new voices, as we have already documented others complaints. This user was the very first person to reply. He was disruptive the last three times he brought up these same points, and it is disruptive again. 'People questioned' are not weasel words. It is verifiable fact if you read the cited sources. If it said "people say" with no citation you would be correct. To quote the WP:WEASEL page you provided: "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." They have been. All primary sources have been correctly provided in the citation at the end of the sentence. Any user can click the sources and see what has been said by reading the page. This is where COMMONSENSE comes into play. If a thousand people all said the same thing, it flies completely in the face of common sense to inline cite all thousand people. the pointless discussion about the "debate" is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to provide context to the final sentence. It completely changes the meaning of the paragraph to say "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into" without acknowledging he successfully created a trainwreck. You have a substantial conflict of interest. You were factually part of the "swirling maelstrom of anal retention" and it is documented. It reflects poorly on you. Regardless, it does not make the sentence any less verifiable. The author verifiable said it. As stated above acknowledgement of the "debate" is necessary to provide context to the final sentence. Your breathing patterns are irrelevant, they cannot be used to prevent verified, accurate content. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC) You made your case and I offered a rebuttal. You do not need to constantly "rebut the rebuttal" as well. It is extremely aggravating. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC) You were explicitly asked not to offer a rebuttal, because you are derailing the conversation. The other two users who commented offered valid criticisms. You did not. You offered the same disproven claims as last time. This is bad faith. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC) If you make a proposal for the article, you don't get to decide who can or cannot oppose that proposal. Furthermore, it is only your opinion that I am "derailing" anything. My criticism is just as valid as anyone else's. You are trying to force your proposal into the article by bludgeoning anyone who offers the least bit of criticism, and you have set me up to be your "archnemesis" because it is easier to attack me than accept how wrong your proposal is. It's time for you to let everyone have their say without you jumping on people and telling them they have a "conflict of interest" or some such bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I asked for fresh opinions because the old ones were getting in the way and causing clutter. I started a new section so we could get away from those people and have an isolated conversation. My attempt did not work. Your opinions had been registered and did not need to be reexpressed. You don't need to vote twice. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Oppose per WP:UNDUE. This really isn't important, it doesn't add to the article, just reports some web chatter, borderline WP:FANCRUFT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Why do you guys insist on repeating arguments that have already been rebuffed?? Simon Pegg's twitter account IS a reliable source in this instance since he is directly involved in the movie. (and WP:RS is a guideline so flexible). Since when did "too many references" become a reason not to add content to an article?? And as for WP:FANCRUFT, it is very presumptuous, not to mention somewhat arrogant, to assume you know what people will find interesting. Instead of obstinately refusing to budge from your position - why not do something useful and provide a suggestion on how to improve the suggestion? (I apologise if this comes off as aggressive, but I'm starting to lose my patience with people preventing others from improving the article.) douts (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I admit this does boarder on WP:FANCRUFT, you are correct. Transparency is important. I am not hiding the fact that I agree with you. However, the fact that a four word phrase could not be deciphered in over six months is notable. Credible news organizations (the daily dot meets the criteria by having an editorial board (http://www.dailydot.com/masthead/) covered the fact that people were having trouble deciphering the title of the movie. In the TITLE section of this movies page, it IS ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that a six month debate over the meaning of the title took place across the interweb (including partially but not exclusively on wikipedia) be mentioned. This is why I believe WP:BOLD & WP:IAR along with the essay WP:Abundance_and_redundancy outweighs WP:UNDUE. Than you for providing criticism. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Oppose any mention of "months of discussion". This is a clear reference to Wikipedia, even if inexplicit. This article needs to be focused on STID, and not on Wikipedia. Indirect self referencing is not ok, and disguising self references, as the above does, is worse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Joe, discussion about the unusualness of the title began long before any discussion here, so in no way is that a clear reference to wikipedia. This has been stated numerous times. douts (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Honestly, it is a reference to TrekMovie.com where the discussion began on September 7th. If you click the source you can see every claim made in the sentence in the comments of the article (over 2500 comments) before the discussion even began on wikipedia. The fact that the discussion also took place on wikipedia does not mean it did not take place elsewhere as well. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I know of course that there was discussion about the title, on its release, in September. But only Wikipedia continued the discussion. We don't discuss Wikipedia. The suggested text is way too self-referential. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Like above where I admitted I was approaching WP:FANCRUFT, and I believe you are correct this is approaching self reference. I am not sure you can actually prove the debate quieted down everywhere except wikipedia, but I don't want to go looking for sources to the contrary either. The fact of the matter is, the press coverage this wikipedia talk page got, REINVIGORATED the discussion across the web. It has spread to reddit, the xkcd forums and other newspapers have written about the topic. So while I believe you can technically make a claim to self reference, its not in the spirit of the rules to use technicalities to prevent content you dislike. I personally believe this is a clear cut case of WP:IAR Cheers, and thanks for the criticism. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC) In addition, this is not a disguised reference. It is out of courtesy for users, as multiple people mentioned they did not like how explicitly it was mentioned before. I rephrased the sentence to make it about the movie title and not wikipedia. The topic of the sentence is the debate the title caused, and it directly feeds into the next sentence. The sentence itself is IMPERATIVE to give context to the final sentence. I explained above. Briefly: The final sentence says it was jj abrams intention to create a trainwreck (aka get people talking about star trek, which by the way he was successful atif it is true.) The sentence loses all meaning if the paragraph does not propose he was successful. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC) So we are now into the 5th section about the same thing...? You dont need to keep summarising everyone's arguments. It's not the way things are done and quite frankly you cannot summarise an editor's comments without something being lost in translation. You need to reach a consensus separately from trying to work on the section. Hence why we are now in our 5th section and before it's inclusion, you need the consensus. Which...you don't have. MisterShiney ✉ 22:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Agreed. Get consensus on the concept before re-re-rewriting it and potentially wasting all that effort. —Frungi (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Consensus that it should be mentioned was got above - and the consensus was that it should be mentioned. The re-writings were an effort of address some of the concerns raised about the wording etc. The biggest problems right now are Scjessey's refusal to accept that his comments regarding sources are incorrect - too many sources is NEVER a bad thing; that Simon Pegg's twitter is a reliable source in this instance, and Rob's mention of WP:FANCRUFT, which, as has been acknowledged - even if it is quite frankly somewhat inappropriate to attempt to predict what others think is interesting. douts (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I meant consensus on whether to have a full paragraph devoted to it, which seems to be some of the reason for opposing. Sorry for the confusion. And I agree that an actor’s verified Twitter account is a reliable source for quotes from said actor. —Frungi (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Oppose: The writing style is pretentious. Ryan Vesey 22:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I'd love to hear your reasoning behind that - it ain't pretentious in the slightest. douts (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Support: Anyone irked by pretension left 40,000 words ago. Be bold. It's imperfect, yes, and it moves this... um, somewhat pedantic debate... one step further. --Whoosit (stalk) 23:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Now counting over 73,000 words, BTW. The debate on the cartoon is about to outpace the debate on the "i", and in a fraction of the time. There's gotta be another comic strip in there somewhere... --Whoosit (stalk) 23:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Comment: the obsessed single-purpose account User:Xkcdreader needs to give this article a rest. (As MisterShiney said, we're now in the 5th section of discussion on this in how many days?) -sche (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Any reference that mentions Wikipedia should be excluded as unreliable or self-referencing with regards to the subject of this article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Why? I don’t believe WP:SELFREF prohibits using useful information from sources that also mention WIkipedia. It would be Bad to use such sources exclusively, but that’s not the case here. —Frungi (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC) SELFREF is a style guideline not a rule. It should not interfere with the inclusion content that is otherwise worthy, especially when the PURPOSE of the inclusion is not self reference. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC) The text is inappropriate because it draws attention to ourselves. Maybe it is fixable, but the length (as opposed to the conclusions) of our discussions here should not gain mention in the article, whether directly, or via external attention to our talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC) There is no "under no circumstances draw attention to yourself rule." There are exceptions. There is IAR. The mention of the debate is NECESSARY to set up the final sentence regarding JJ Abrams marching strategy. The debate isnt being mentioned for no reason. There is a purpose. Do you understand what I am trying to say. When you read the last two sentences, do you see how they go together to form a larger thought? It doesn't belong in a wikipedia in culture article because that is not the topic of the sentence, (the movie title is debate itself is.) If you can find a way to paraphrase it instead of quote it, we might be able to find a middle ground. As it stands at the moment the authors word choose is the best we have, because we need secondary sources. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Again, I don’t see where anything says that talking about Wikipedia renders all information from a source unusable. Can you point me to the WP: page? —Frungi (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC) An external opinion that references an internal opinion is tainted. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs on an article explicitly referencing Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia in culture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC) (ec)Mabye: The title has seemingly grammatical ambiguity in the context of traditional use of the name Star Trek and the lack of a demarcating colon leavs the stylistic intent ambiguous..[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Possible interpretations include whether "Trek is a verb," and consequently, if Into Darkness was no longer an implied subtitle to the series title Star Trek but instead part of the noun phrase Trek Into Darkness.[1][4][5][6][7][9][10][11] Contributing to further ambiguity was Paramount's unprecedented use of the movie title as a declarative phrase in its initial marketing synopsis which began: In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.[12][13] The last two sentences don't warrant inclusion. Simon Pegg's opinion is not known to be connected to title decisions, and Kevin Morris' speculation on someone's possible intents is too tenuous. Also, it has too many references. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC) The TOPIC of the paragraph is the confusion caused by the title. Simon Peggs tweet added to the confusion. The last sentence says the confusion was caused on purpose as a marketing ploy. The previous sentences tells us the plan is successful. Removing these sentences removes a substantial part of the story. Consensus isnt repeating the same thing over and over, it is listening to each other and finding a middle ground. This paragraph was formed THROUGH consensus. I wrote something, it was criticized, it was revised. Frungi and Nsign and Rob Sinden have all helping create consensus by finding middle ground.Xkcdreader (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC) “Simon Pegg's tweet added to the confusion.” Can you source that claim? Not the quote, the claim that it added to the confusion. That is, can you show that the quote is relevant and that this isn’t WP:synthesis? (Not that I’m accusing you of such—it’s just best to have proof.) —Frungi (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC) No problem Frungi. I guess we will need to add MORE sources to this :) http://nerdrepository.com/movies/star-trek-sequel-officially-titled-star-trek-darkness/ 11 pages of discussion - http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=6950329 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkcdreader (talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC) The first only says that Pegg mentioned the title; and the second is a forum thread, which I don't think are generally acceptable sources… —Frungi (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC) The first one says I don't know what to think. The forum has users arguing over if it is a verb. A form discussion should be a legitimate primary source when the statement is "people discussed." If a reasonable person can click the source it works as a primary document. We CANNOT interpret anything, only state facts. It is fine line to walk we just have to be careful how the sentences are worded. Xkcdreader (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC) After further consideration, the sentence roughly reads "Simon Pegg said...' It makes not claim as to whether he added to the confusion. Such a conclusion is left for the reader to decide. As it is currently written, it is a statement of fact, and appropriate. Xkcdreader (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Referencing that "the title can confuse" is good. Simon Peggs tweet is a primary source that should not be considered sufficiently reliable or reputable for inclusions. Note that he is not (known to be) an author or publisher. Wikipedia is loath to include tweets, even from interesting people. "The last sentence says the confusion was caused on purpose as a marketing ploy." It does, speculatively. But this is becoming tenous and only indirectly connected to the subject. And it is speculation. Speculation, by others, is only interesting if yet others have found it interesting. "The previous sentences tells us the plan is successful." That is weak. Too weak. "Removing these sentences removes a substantial part of the story." Yes. The story was much too long. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC) The paragraph thesis is: The confusing nature of the title's grammar led to much debate and Kevin Morris speculated this was JJ Abrams intention when selecting the title. If you can rewrite the paragraph to convey the same message, I am all ears. I am positive the first sentence 'could be trimmed, I just see no reason for it, when to do so conveys less information. The first sentence is long but it transmits a WEALTH of information is a succinct fashion. None of the words are meaningless, so as you remove them, you change the meaning of the sentence. If you think it needs trimming, maybe write the simple.wikipedia version? Not wanting to draw attention to this page is NOT a valid reason to remove all mention of Kevin Morris's analysis. I understand why you would prefer not to, but hiding an embarrassing situation does not take precedence. He offered UNIQUE analysis into the situation, and it is more than appropriate to quote him. Style guidelines do not overrule BOLD. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Simon Pegg's Twitter account has been verified as being the real him and as such is reliable, and while he may not be an author or a publisher, he is directly involved in the film and therefore knows much better than us what the intent was. douts (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Comment: Consensus is not the more popular opinion. Consensus is taking in all the proper and valid concerns raised. Consensus is NOT the absence of objection. I am beating the shit out of it on the talk page first before adding it to the article so as to be sensitive to nearly everyone's concerns. Revisions are a good thing, and I chose to work on them in semi-private first to respect the people involved in this story. (Ignoring Scjessey's points, which have been debunked ad nauseam) Rob Sinden is making what I consider BY FAR the most sense for the exclude side. He thinks it's trivial and UNDUE. This leaves us with TWO things to discuss. What is the maximum appropriate length to discuss the movies title? The producers and the internet BOTH had substantial debates over the grammar of the title That is fact. Is THREE-SIX SENTENCES concerning the confusion that resulted really UNDUE? I can't buy that argument. Twelve sentences is the appropriate length for a description of a phenomenon that has spawned hundreds of thousands of words and no conclusion. As far as policy goes BOLD and IAR would trump UNDUE. Logic, commonsense, and consensus should be to err on the side of abundance over exclusion, in the spirit of bold, UNLESS someone can EXPLAIN why UNDUE should trump BOLD. As such no one yet has. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC) The arguments here about the title and cartoon are as significant than any flamewar on any subject on any forum -- that is to say, not at all, and not at all appropriate for an "encyclopaedia", even one with so much devoted to pop culture. Anyone interested in Wikipedia's debates on the title would be reading this page, not the article. It's also pretty obvious that with such impassioned debate here that no summary in 6, 12, or 1000 sentences would remain stable for more than a minute. It'd just be opening another version of the revert wars that plagued the lead paragraph. It's just a fact that the title, without a colon, is ungrammatical and no choice of capitalisation can make it parse. As for Wikipedia using its own rules to capitalise, this is quite standard procedure. See for instance how any library, such as the Library of Congress, styles titles. E.g. Star trek generations. 202.81.249.209 (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC) If the flamewar is orchestrated as part of a larger marketing campaign related to the movie it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We can verify that at least one credible media personality has published this claim. The flamewar, as you call it, adds three sentences to the article and two of them are related directly to the titles grammar not arguing. ONE sentence directly mentioning the argument and only the argument is appropriate and tactful, because it is used to set up the following point. Furthermore, the title is perfectly grammatical. [Trek is a verb. Into is a compound directional spatial adposition. Trek Into is a verb phrase. Darkness is a noun. Trek Into Darkness is a noun phrase. Star is an adjective. Star Trek Into Darkness is a noun phrase the exact same way Road Trip Into Wilderness is a noun phrase.] It is not hard to parse, however people are confused because Star Trek is not normally used this way and split up. The noun phrase Trek Into Darkness has replaced the old noun Trek. Star has ALWAYS been an adjective. QED I am comfortable saying consensus has been established. This does not mean everyone agrees and there is no opposition, it means a wide variety of opinions have been heard and discussed. Their merits have been weighed by multiple editors and the most valid two arguments are UNDUE vs BOLD BECAUSE. WP:SELFREF is a style guideline and not a valid reason to keep the most controversial sentence out in and of itself. User whoosit said it best. "Be bold. It's imperfect, yes." I am not going to just throw it into the article yet, because it is worth giving other editors time to propose NEW arguments. That's what consensus is, listening to other people and trying to respect as many viewpoints as possible. The text has been substantially rewritten compared to its initial form, to respect other editors inputs. An who previously said it was a joke, now says it is appropriate. "It isn't important" is a judgement call, presumptuous, and enough of a minority has agreed the debate is worth ONE sentence and warrants inclusion. If no NEW arguments are made, and the old ones are repeated and repeated I am going to WP:IAR WP:UNDUE and GO BOLDLY. Xkcdreader (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works (or grammar for that matter, but we'll let that go for now). If you add something that there is clear opposition to, it will be reverted. You have no consensus to make these changes. In additional to all its other faults, there's also degree of synthesis in your proposal. You really need to let this go. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I am trying to be very respectful of you and your opinions because your contributions have been valuable. Consensus is not the same thing as the majorities opinion. If people revert it, it will eventually go to mediation. Telling me to let this go is not how debates are settled. You don't need consensus to be bold AND every option so far has been acknowledged and considered, in line with how the consensus process works. The only possible synthesis would be the first two sentences, which combine a couple ideas into one sentence with conjunctions. If you feel they somehow violate WO:NOR, please help rewrite them. The last two sentences of the paragraph are direct quotes from a reputable journalist concerning the debate over the grammatical structure and interpretations of the movie title. The fact that people are debating what the title means, with nary a solid conclusion is newsworthy, and has been covered by multiple reputable news organization. Grammar experts have been called in from newspapers to examine the orthography of the title. This is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, and multiple people have agreed in this respect. The middle two sentences are quotes from people involved in the production of the movie. The first tow statements are statements of fact derived from primary sources. There is no interpretation or analysis. They are merely sentences of fact describing an event that has occurred. People are being given ample time to help rewrite the paragraph. Continually shouting WP:UNDUE is not in the spirit of consensus, you are suppose to help find middle ground and not stick in a corner and continually shout your opinion. All you have stated is, "not enough people should find this interesting" and you have no proof to back said claim up. I have now asked you to go into detail and explain WHY you believe UNDUE overrides BOLD and you have yet to respond. Therefore, although your sentiment may be the majority opinion, it is not necessarily the most valid opinion. Consensus is a METHOD USED TO ACHIEVE GOALS not the resulting option derived from the method. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. So far consensus has been utilized appropriately. When I GO BOLDLY, consensus will have been reached until an editor decides to revert the edit. If it is reverted, consensus will have been reached again. Consensus being reached is equivalent to the status quo. If a revert occurs, this issue will go through mediation, because I (along with a large minority of editors) do not believe WP:UNDUE is an appropriate reason to keep out encyclopedic, interesting, valid, relevant, accurate, cited, neutral information. You and you alone are not in a position to determine what is due weight vs fancruft. Although I may come off as slightly aggressive or persistent, I appreciate your continued participation in this conversation. Xkcdreader (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Per WP:BRD, any bold move you make will be reverted if considered inappropriate, and then discussed. However, if you knowingly make a change that explicitly goes against consensus, then this is disruptive behaviour. Please desist. I'm not going to waste my time helping you rewrite sentences of synthetic content that shouldn't be here. It's all very well claiming to invoke WP:IAR, but what you fail to grasp is that 5-6 editors on here are telling you that it doesn't belong, therefore WP:IAR is not a valid argument, as we believe that these changes are not beneficial to Wikipedia. You consistently don't listen and persist with trying to railroad this change through, mistakenly believing that if you shout loud enough, you will have your way. By summarising others' arguments, you have continually misrepresented the views of myself and other editors. Please stop this disruptive behaviour now. We've had enough. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC) [Sidenote: If you have had enough, you are more than welcome to stop participating. I am not asking you to, because you have been helpful and respectful of those who disagree with you. You're state of having had enough is not justification to suppress other peoples opinions.] Xkcdreader (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC) It's your disruptive behaviour I'm trying to suppress, not your opinions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC) From my point of view, your behavior is disruptive. You continually lead the conversation in circles instead of forward. This is why we can't have nice things. I am not trying to bull-rush this into the article. I am acknowledging SIGNIFICANT opposition. I am not misrepresenting points. You keep claim that I am ignoring everyone, which is untrue. I am ignoring one person (not you) because they refuse to have a dialogue. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Justification for inclusion: Pfhorrest, David93, douts, Eraserhead1, Whoosit and I have reached a minority consensus which can be summed up as: The proposal is a comprehensive overview that deserves placement in the article. The proposed addition is Encyclopedic, well-sourced, and deftly handles the topic without putting any emphasis on Wikipedia. It is of interest to a wide variety of people and escapes meeting the definition of WP:FANCRUFT because of the volume of people who have participated in discussing the topic. Dissenting opinions include: Frungi, who agrees it is an interesting topic, and Nsign who is not in support of inclusion but agrees it is appropriately written for inclusion in an encyclopedia. In addition, Fletcher is not opposed to brief mention of the ambiguity, however believes the discussion of grammar is too technical. Douts and I believe it is arrogant to assume you know what people will find interesting and is a misuse of WP:UNDUE. It is recognized the majority opinion at this time is WP:UNDUE, with a vocal minority claiming WP:SELFREF is mean. (I, in good faith, believe this is an accurate summary of our point that does not misrepresent any persons views.) Xkcdreader (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC) NO! just by claiming that you have a "minority consensus" does not make it so! Stop summarising like this, you're putting unfair bias on the arguments, and misrepresenting the views of others. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Exactly whose views is he misrepresenting?? Also, there is clearly more of a consensus to include rather than exclude at present, since consensus is supposed to be based upon validity of arguments and not votes as there is no fully valid reason to exclude so far mentioned. WP:UNDUE might be a minor issue but as stated earlier it is quite frankly arrogant on anyones part to assume you know what people will find interesting. douts (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Everyone's. Summaries like this take any arguments and opinion out of context, and are selectively inclusive. I don't think that this summary correctly represents anyone, especially the "dissenters", as it only shows the elements that they may be supportive of in other circumstances. Quite simply, summaries are biased, and should not be made. Per WP:TPNO: "The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I second douts sentiment that it is quite frankly arrogant on anyones part to assume you know what people will find interesting. I added it to the summary. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC) And it is exactly this summaried misrepresentation that has misled you to think that there is consensus in favour of inclusion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Rob, this statement vastly misrepresents my statements. I am claiming consensus should favor inclusion. If I believed consensus had been reached I would have added it already, instead of continuing to work through the consensus process. As it stands there is still a pretty big disagreement over whether WP:UNDUE applies. Many of you have made the claim, and none of you have backed it up. Normally I would dismiss your argument due to lack of evidence, HOWEVER I am recognizing you may have a point. Thus, because you might have a valid point, to overrule you would violate consensus. This is why I am calling for further discussion. You have stated you do not wish to discuss any longer. If you walk away, and nobody defends WP:UNDUE, I will determine that consensus favors inclusion. But, because of my belief that you have a point, I further contend there is no rush to include, and we should continue the conversation on the talk page for the time being. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Rob, I believe you are incorrectly interpreting what I have written. It states a minority of people have reached their own consensus not that our consensus matches the overall consensus. I contend current public opinion is against inclusion (mostly due to WP:SELFREF) but personally believe WP:UNDUE is being used to block instead, because WP:SELFREF is only a style guideline and easily overruled by WP:BEBOLD. I concede, as it stands at the moment, this text should not be included as is, and needs further work or discussion. Thus, I have yet to add it to the Article because, as you say, doing so could be considered as disruptive. I (and I believe accurately. You have stated it misrepresents a view, but have yet to back up your claim with any evidence) summarized our point in the event this does reach mediation. You are making sweeping accusations of using peoples positions out of context, yet you wont provide specifics. Your claim is, at the moment, unsubstantiated. I acknowledge I could have interpreted something incorrectly, but it was not done on purpose. Which dissenter am I misrepresenting?? I find your belief that you are allowed to dictate what we find interesting more arrogant.Xkcdreader (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC) You've made one hell of a mess of this talk page by adding all these summaries, and hiding all the previous discussions (which I had to undo yesterday) and have completely muddied any chance of a consensus. Your summaries have put paid to that. I know you're a new editor, and I've been trying to hold my tongue, but quite frankly you need to stop. Being bold is not about going against consensus, and it doesn't "trump" anything, as you claim above. All guidelines are supposed to be complementary to each other for the benefit of Wikipedia. I, and others, believe that, per WP:UNDUE, and other guidelines, it is inappropriate to bang on about this issue in the article about the film. The title is mentioned already, maybe it can be expanded on, maybe not, but your proposal is not acceptable, and it certainly doesn't need to be in the form you propose above. If you're going to be WP:BOLD, try building on what we have (maybe a word or two at a time, but be careful to be encyclopedic, and don't be surprised if you get reverted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I made a mess of the talk page? Really? It was an absolute disaster before. You were lampooned by a webcomic. I added structure and thus far it has been civil. I acknowledge your sentiment that the "proposal is not acceptable". (I also apologize for misusing the hide function. I misunderstood what it was for. I assumed people would want things collapsed, and that if they wanted to see the prior conversation, they would scroll up and use the SHOW button. My mistake.) I am trying to build on what we have, and trying to build consensus. You are the one calling for the conversation to end before a compromise can be reached. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Summaries automatically misrepresent because comments have been reauthored to your interpretation. I don't want to speak for others (which is what you've been doing) but I don't think Frungi or Nsign would agree with your summation of their input. Don't summarise the opinions of others - as WP:TPNO says: "The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context". By summarising, you are taking them out of context and presenting them in a manner that can only be seen to advance your cause. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Wait, summaries AUTOMATICALLY misrepresent views? You are claiming a valid summary is impossible? Bollox. Quit citing that document. It is a generalization and a suggestion. It says you shouldn't do that. It does not say my summary is automatically misrepresenting the users. You should not speak for Frungi or Nsign, because I have not misrepresented their points. I am not speaking for them. I am summarizing their views accurately. I can cite exactly what they have said that matches up with my summary. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC) And this is exactly why it shouldn't be done. You're saying I shouldn't speak for them (which I purposely haven't), yet you think it's okay for you to speak for them in your summaries. WTF? And your blanket dismissal of Wikipedia guidelines except for the ones that advance your position is puzzling. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC) It's not about me dictating what other people will find interesting! It's about significance. Per WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC) And this is the crux of the disagreement and why I have yet to claim full consensus. I have avoided being bold thus far, specifically because YOU are raising a good point. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC) And a 6 month long continuous discussion across numerous sites and news articles is not significant?? As for your statement that I have been led to believe there is consensus because of the summaries - you're wrong. I have addressed every argument you and others came up with and none of them are valid enough (at all in some cases) to warrrent exclusion. It may be that the addition can be further shortened (although I'm not sure it can without losing context) and the consensus is clearly in favour of at least mentioning it. douts (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Not in terms of the film - no. it is "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". And we already do mention the titling in the article - perhaps it can be expanded slightly (that's all we might have consensus for based on discussions so far), but not to the extent suggested above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC) The subject is the film title, not the film. Frankly I don't understand how you can't acknowledge it is possible the weight appropriate to its significance to the subject is six sentences. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Well that's simply not the case. The subject of the article is the film, not the title of the film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC) You're pulling my leg right? I know "assume good faith" but this feels like trolling. The subject of the TITLE subsection in the Article, is the TITLE of the movie. The TITLE sections already exists. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC) WP:UNDUE is about the subject of the article as a whole, not individual sections. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Partial outsider opinion time! Xkcdreader, you should stop now. The point of being bold is to introduce a radical change to an article, which can then be discussed if it is controversial. Being bold does not mean disregarding the opinions of others, especially when the others don't agree with you. I stated before that I think the title section should include a reference to the dispute, but I now further that to expand on what I said in a later part of my opinion; this should be a sentence at the very most, referencing Wikipedia in popular culture. The grammatical sensibilities of the title are not a major talking point outside of Wikipedia, with the exception of news articles that refer back to this talk page. We are therefore the source of our own citations. As your name professes, and as you arrived at this article, please read this xkcd comic entitled Citogenesis. We are not denying that you have an opinion, just that your opinion has no weight over consensus; being bold is not the overriding factor in Wikipedia. You are bold, we are simply following WP:BRD, and concluding that your content isn't suitable at this time. whatever you think is standing between your content and inclusion, whether that be undue weight or self-referencing, it is not for you to override community opinion on the grounds of boldness. If the grammar/stylisation of the title were talking points in many other forums, then it may be worth inclusion, but at this time, it is effecting next to no-one outside Wikipedia and xkcd. As the total number of editors on wikipedia is equal to just over a quarter of a percent of the world's population, and xkcd isn't a cultural phenomenon, it is safe to assume that the majority of the world doesn't even know about the existence of this argument. In 1994, a total of over 400,000 people attended Star Trek conventions. Even if we say that that number has remained the same, and that they were all the Star Trek fans in the world, then the total number of editors active on Wikipedia in the last month isn't even equal to half of the known fans. We are not living in a world where everyone is debating this, and it has been decided, for now at least, that it is not notable within the article. Take my advice, and let this subject lay for now. By continuing it, you will just damage your cause should it be debated in the future. drewmunn talk 11:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I am not disregarding Rob's opinion. I am specifically crediting him with a valid point. I have YET to be bold. I have yet to edit the page. Are you saying I should stop working towards consensus? There is a compromise afloat. (I see no reason to mention wikipedia or wikipedia in popular culture. To do so is irrelevant, and not the issue being discussed.) "The grammatical sensibilities of the title are not a major talking point outside of Wikipedia" is not true. This is a HUGE problem in this debate. Regular wikipedia users keep claiming they were the only ones having the conversation. This wikipedia centric worldview is ridiculous. Over ten citations are provided which discuss the grammar of the title BEFORE WIKIPEDIA BEGAN THE DEBATE. The earliest citation is September 7th. Your point has already been covered and disproven. (And this is why this debate is so long! People keep re-covering the exact same two points. If I dismiss it without explain it again, people claim I am ignoring them. If I re-cover the points, it makes the discussion long. When the discussion is longer nobody reads it. When people don't read it, they chime in and everything starts over. It's a catch-22 and a bad DirecTV commercial. We are talking in circles. All your points have been covered ad nauseum.) "If the grammar/stylization of the title were talking points in many other forums, then it may be worth inclusion" It was, and if you took the time to read the citations, you would see there is ample coverage of the titles grammar. You are accidentally making my point. There was Internet wide coverage of the titles grammar, mention of it SHOULD be included and is NOT WP:UNDUE http://trekmovie.com/2012/09/07/exclusive-star-trek-sequel-title-confirmed// has over 2300 comments discussing the title, and has a conversation that went from September 7th to October 6th. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC) There is a difference between mentioning the grammatical oddity, and there being debate about it, and I'm not being Wikipedia-centric. Can you point me to any of your citations that document a debate, rather than mention fuzzy grammar, that occurred before the launch of the Wikipedia debate (I'm not saying there aren't any there, I'm just saying there's too much on the internet for me to find)? "Over 2300" on one site is not necessarily of note on a wider scale. Also, I'm discussing the fact that you're constantly referring to boldness throughout your argument; you aren't particularly developing your reasoning, and although I understand that others support you (I support the inclusion in some manner), there is considerable weight against you. Not UNDUE-style weight, just guidelines and the such. Boldness is taking action, which editors have done in the past. Their changes were reverted, so this is technically a bog-standard proposal, the outcome of which should not be bold. We've gone past the B and R of WP:BRD, and now we're on D. Your discussions are going around in circles, with fairly slow progress being mostly driven by the other editors. Stepping back may be the best plan on your part, and let the others fight it out; I have no problem with the proposal's existence, more that you are causing much of the issues that are lengthening this debate. I have not been watching this page since leaving the discussions for a break after xkcd-gate, but since watching it this morning (accidentally after adding the section below), all I've seen in edits are people debating with you. Rob has made a valid point above, in that the article is about the film; the point of the title subsection has been up for debate a little in the past, but the most important thing to note is that we should fly off on a tangent. The content of the title subsection is about releasing the title to the public and how it affects the film. I personally feel mentioning the debate is too wide a tangent, unless it is a concise mention of the existence, but not going into semantics. That is where Wikipedia in popular culture comes in. xkcd is worth a mention there, and we should link to it (in my opinion). However, the content of the debate is not (again, my opinion) a wide enough subject. I'm not being parochial here, I'm using facts. I've put in some quite extensive effort researching the blacklash from the title around the web, and have come to the conclusion that it's barely a drop in the ocean of life. Finally, I'd like to point out that I do take the time to read citations. I also take the time to repeatedly read through this entire discussion, and every related one, as I have since beginning contributing on this article last year. I also read masses of online documentation, compile evidence for and against the previous debates, and search out other people's conclusions; heck, I even have an algorithm for the purpose of keeping me up to date on this bloody film. "Over 10 citations" does not prove something is notable to the wider world, it's the quality of those citations, and the relevance of them in regards to the overall picture that matters. My personal opinion on this matter is that of an informed participant (prev bystander, prev prev participant), and is that you at least should step back for a time. Let your proposal run its course, and let other editors help bring it to a conclusion; you are going in circles. drewmunn talk 12:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC) "I personally feel mentioning the debate is too wide a tangent, unless it is a concise mention of the existence." To keep this quick. Please scroll up to the top of the "Proposed "Title" Section into Darkness" and read "Proposal Part Two:" I am going to bold this to make a point other people see, I promise am not yelling at you! THERE IS ONLY ONE SENTENCE IN THE PARAGRAPH (which is six sentences long) that MENTIONS/REFERENCES/ADDRESSES THE DEBATE. It doesn't even say the words wikipedia. This is intentional so the subject matter is handled deftly. Rob Sinden is claiming one sentence is WP:UNDUE. "xkcd is worth a mention there" It was initially mentioned in the proposal and a couple people continually fought to have it removed. That is consensus for you. We came to a compromise. It is currently used as a citation instead. I am not being condescending when I say this, but will you please go back, and read through the actual proposed text two or three times? Maybe four or five? Look at what it actually says. It's not about the debate. The debate is an INCREDIIBLY minor tangent point. The paragraph is constructed, and spends six sentences, analyzing the grammatical oddity of the title. The fact that the title is grammatically odd is WELL established. Thanks for taking the time to type out your thoughts. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Let me try and provide some context. First, I am not trying to point fingers here. This is merely what everything looks like from my perspective. Overall most editors have made significant contributions to whittle this proposal down to its current point. It has been rewritten over and over and over and over and over. Editors like Frungi, Nsign, Fletcher have gone on record stating why they oppose things, and we come to a compromise. The paragraph wouldn't read anywhere near as elegantly without their help. Both sides have made concessions to each other. Two people specifically, Rob Sinden and Scjessey offer no compromise or middle ground. The same behavior is what led to the initial i|I debate. They do not budge an inch and hint they will revert any edit made, just to establish consensus as exclusion. When I asked for fresh voices, those two users reiterated their same points that had been already covered. I will give Rob Sinden's argument credit. He is not wrong per se. There is a differing of opinion over what constitutes due weight. His argument has supporters, as does the counterargument. I read through everyone comments and tallied the criticisms. Currently four people (MisterShiney, Rob Sinden, Scjessey, Fletcher) have opposed due to WP:UNDUE and SIX voted to include it as written (douts, Eraserhead1, Pfhorrest, David93, Xkcdreader). I am not tallying the "other arguments" because they have been discussed to death and I think most people agree would agree WP:UNDUE/WP/FANCRUFT is the only legitimate point of contention over the text itself. Some users are citing WP:SELFREF, but as we discussed it is NOT a circular reference, so this argument is wrong. So to "summarize" (which Rob has been asking me not to do). Scjessey has a whole list of complaints (verbose, weasel words, impenetrable language, low-quality sourcing, pointless discussion about the "debate", far too many references) which multiple people addressed as invalid. He then reiterates the same points over again without listening to anyone elses argument. As such, communication has broken down between Scjessey and I am no longer able to interact with him in any meaningful way. I will leave that to other editors. This is getting long again. The MAIN problem we are having is when two people will be talking and Rob Sinden or Scjessey interject themselves into the conversation and derail it with tangent points. I respect Rob Sinden and have asked him to stay involved in the discussion so we can reach consensus. We both just need to work on not talking in circles. I have given up discussing anything with Scjessey. Neither of us are able to communicate with each other in any meaningful way, and to continue to interact is futile and counterproductive. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Stop acting like an uninvolved admin! You can't decide whose opinions to count and whose not to! Again, by summarising, you've completely misrepresented the arguments, and left out the opinion of 4-5 people who disagree with you, and a couple of fence-sitters. You really need to be kept in check. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Oh, and User:Scjessey isn't the problem here. He's a responsible and established editor. I feel his frustration. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Consensus is establishing the validity of an argument. Scjessey's argument has been established as invalid by MULTIPLE PEOPLE. No one else is forwarding his arguments. I am not discounting him by myself. I said I have chose to no longer communicate with him. I find it very disrespectful that you think I am incapable of taking an impartial role in measuring consensus. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Not a single one of your summaries is without bias, this one included. You cannot be expected to be impartial when you're fighting for the inclusion of something, so don't try to be. And just because you and Scjessey can't play nice, doesn't make his opinion less important than yours. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC) And reading Scjesssey's "oppose" !vote above, his response seems concise and well-reasoned. It's your response telling him that his opinion doesn't matter which seems to be the problem. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Instead of continually making this claim, back it up. Go back, read the debate, and find the opinions you think I am leaving out. If you believe the summary is inaccurate, offer a counter summary. I left out things like Oppose - pretentious, or oppose- xkcdreader sucks because they are stupid arguments without validity. I also said, Scjessey's arguments are invalid AND we can't play nice. Not because we can't play nice. His arguments were debunked by multiple people, and no counter arguments were given. They are invalid arguments. Go back and read the entire post if you want. Read the REPLIES to his oppose. They point by point explain why each one is wrong. No counter argument was provided, just repetition. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC) His arguments are valid in my book. Just because he chooses not to rise to your baiting does not give you the right to claim their invalidity. You really don't understand how this works do you? You are not the judge here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC) And considering your tone of response, I'm not surprised he left it at that. Oh - and it was just you that replied to him, not "multiple people"! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC) The real world will comment on the film, and maybe the title, when it's released in three months. If Ebert's review makes a big deal about the grammar of the title, it can be mentioned in the Reception section then. Now, not even Memory Alpha mentions this "controversy". 202.81.249.209 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC) There is only one sentence regarding the controversy. One sentence. The controversy is only mentioned in passing to put the final sentence of the paragraph into context. No - I'm not claiming one sentence is WP:UNDUE, I'm claiming the whole bloody lot is WP:UNDUE. To my mind there is no way that any of it belongs here, and if I could see the references I could check, but I suspect that a lot of it is WP:SYNTHESIS too, and that the references do not back up the "months of discussions" claim anywhere other than Wikipedia, which we've already established as unacceptable per WP:SUBJECT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Rob, consensus has been established earlier that this should be mentioned - so it will eventually be added to the article at some point. So perhaps rather than continually trying to block it outright, maybe you could help us to reach a version that you feel is acceptable. If not this is only gonna end at mediation, which is likely to find in favour of adding some, if not all, of what has been suggested. We are trying to reach a compromise, but it's incredibly difficult to do so without constructive input from both sides. douts (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I cannot see the consensus for inclusion - if anything I see the opposite. I think you may have been misled by Xkcdreader's periodic biased summaries that misrepresent the views of other editors and claim consensus when in fact none has been reached. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Opposition is not the same thing as valid opposition. When someone opposes their reason must have validity. When a group of people take the claim and debunk it, the opposition vote no longer counts towards consensus. Consensus is not a vote. (We are to the point where consensus does not exist because Rob Sinden can't find it, not because it doesnt exist.) Xkcdreader (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC) You fall by your own argument. You claim that Scjessey's opinion doesn't count because you disagreed with it! You claim to have debunked it, yet your so-called "debunking" of it is not the "valid opposition" you think it is. His points remain valid. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC) The conversations happened multiple times. I was probably the only one left replying to him, because we were talking in circles and I didn't know better. (Remember the part where I said, let's get some new voices, and he chimed in again with the same old arguments.) His points have been debunked. I am sorry you can't find them in this mess, or choose not to understand the counter argument. Putting your fingers in your ears is not a solution. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC) You don't get to say who can comment on your proposals. You put forward a new proposal, and he, I, and other editors who had contributed before, commented on this new proposal. Just because you disagreed with him in the past does not discount his opinion. His points have not been "debunked", as they are valid points and remain us such. His concerns over the addition of this proposal are very real and sensible. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Go right back to MisterShiney's original post entitled "Wikipedia Section" - the overriding feeling (and yes, there are some objections) is that some mention of the confusion and discussion caused by the title should be mentioned. As for the summaries, I havnt even looked at them - i've just been reading the actual comments by editors. douts (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Alright. Again. This has been covered multiple times. At least 5. ad nauseum. One more cant hurt? The subject of the first sentence is the titles ambiguous nature not the debate. WP:SUBJECT is an invalid argument. Just because XKCD/DailyDot mention wikipedia does not make them invalid secondary/tertiary sources. The "months of discussion" can be used to put the TOPIC of the sentence into context. WP:SUBJECT is used to keep on topic, not to invalidate any possible mention of wikipedia. This argument should NOT be brought up again. It has been covered too many times. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC) We clearly do have to go over this again and again and again, as you don't seem to grasp how this works. Where does a source back up your claim that the film's ambiguous title has caused months of debate? Where has this debate taken place? Which people questioned whether "trek" was a verb or a noun? etc., etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC) No we don't. Your inability to find it does not mean it wasn't covered. The Daily Dot article explains everything. It goes into the nature of the ambiguity. Yes it is talking about wikipedia. No it is not invalid because of WP:SUBJECT just because wikipedia is the topic. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, that's exactly why it's invalid. The Daily Dot article[18] is explicitly and specifically about Wikipedia, and thus falls foul of WP:SUBJECT. What part of this don't you understand? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC) We can't keep talking in circles. This was decided eons ago. The article is about THE AMBIGUITY OF THE TITLE AND wikipedia's stupid response. It is a valid source on the topic of the ambiguity of the title. Consensus was the daily dot is a valid source we just cant use it to create a sentence where the topic is the debate itself, or it would violate subject. Xkcdreader (talk) What planet are you on? This article is about a film! Although that's easy to forget considering this talk page. And there is no consensus to violate WP:UNDUE or WP:SUBJECT, so we cannot include the Daily Dot reference. Did you decide this in the same way that you decided Scjessey's opinion was not valid? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Oh, hang on - you're agreeing that we can't use the daily dot reference "to create a sentence where the topic is the debate itself", and yet that's what you're trying do do. I don't get where you're coming from at all. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Xkcdreader - please can you fix the references on your proposal to enable us to pick it apart piece by piece. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, I am working on rewriting on this as we speak, to take into accounts your wp:undue criticism. Hopefully we can come to a temporary compromise over what wp:undue is, put that in the article, and then work from there. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC) GUYS I think it's time we just took this to mediation/dispute resolution - whichever is more appropriate. We're getting nowhere here. Although I have no idea how to start said process. douts (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Tend to agree. Xkcdreader - no one doubts you are acting in good faith to try and improve the article but this is getting out of hand. If you can find a way to cut this down to 2 or 3 succinct and relevant sentences then it will have a chance of going in. If you can't, it won't. I may share your opinion with regards to the behaviour of certain editors here (and I'd direct anyone to my talk page for evidence of said behaviour) but the fact stands that you believe this is worthy of a fairly verbose mention in the article, while others do not. I don't think it will be resolved soon because of this difference in opinion so I'd advise against posting reams of further paragraphs here - you will not win any support by doing so and will probably harm your case. I think douts is correct in suggesting mediation. Nsign (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I've asked for some fresh eyes over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

'Big Game Ad'

So the new trailer was good, wasn't it? Just thought I'd throw that out there. In the meantime, it doesn't help solve the titular issues we've been experiencing. The trailer can be read in one of two ways: "Our world will fall INTO DARKNESS", or "Our world will fall. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS". Again, this adds the to the deliberately vague conclusion I've come to, but there we go. You may now continue whatever it was you were up to. drewmunn talk 08:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The TV spot ran during the "blackout" part of the Super Bowl. It amused me that a few Twitter users started using #SuperBowlintoDarkness (mostly with the lowercase "i"). Maybe we should create a comprehensive, 4-paragraph section on this extraordinary phenomenon - citing every single tweet that used the hashtag! </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be worth mentioning that the ad aired during the "blackout" phase of the Super Bowl, actually. Certainly the tense of the mention in the article needs to be updated. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That has gone from absurd to hyper-surreal (also I'm sorry, and again in advance)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First off, I am sorry. I really am. Like really really. I fell way out of line. I should not have come here and tried to contribute. Using the way I got here as a name was a bad idea (I didn't know about that rule.) I shouldn't have gotten so passionate. I should have taken more breaks. I shouldn't save my edit so often and hog the history. 'I shouldn't argue in circles I could continue to list my mistakes ad nauseum :) for your viewing pleasure But... In my mind this grew into a way bigger issue than twelve stupid sentences. Personally, it had become a matter of principle. Moreso because it was about Star Trek, and Star Trek is about the pursuit of knowledge. It literally confuses me that we prefer not to allow people to determine what they consider interesting for themselves. But that is for another conversation about WP:UNDUE and not appropriate here. Nothing will EVER GET DONE AGAIN on wikipedia if this type of behavior is allowed from either side. (/s /drama) There is always some rule to prevent a person from contributing. There is always a guideline. There is always an essay. It took administrators to capitalize this article. I tried to add 6-12 sentences to this article and was blocked at every attempt. But usually for good reason. All the people telling me I was wrong helped turn an ok block of text into a pretty good one. Eventually through lots of debate we reached consensus on the first five sentences. The sixth sentence is a fun little anecdote. It makes the paragraph better. It is entire unnecessary. But it should be included anyway out of principle. What kind of encyclopedia errs on the side of exclusion over having twelve extra sentences in an article? Or one sentence for that matter? What kind of sick person spends thousands of words defending their position? What have you done to me Wikipedia? This is the i|I debate all over again. For some insane reason the general consensus on Wikipedia is to do nothing and argue about it forever. It doesn't help that the talk pages are an awful way to have a conversation. This NEEDS to be threaded like reddit. People need to be able to reply without refreshing the page. Edit conflicts. Ugh. Who in their right mind would ever come here to contribute. You have to spend all your time explaining yourself, and with no time left for writing content. The spirit of WP:BEBOLD is nowhere to be seen, for you need to appease EVERYBODY. Someone will always spearhead a blocking maneuver. Nothing will ever change. Someday we will start to argue if empty pages are better than ones with text. So I have decided 2 things. First, it is time to cool down for a minute. Second, (because consensus was reached in a near unanimous fashion) I am going to GO BOLDLY where I have never gone before and put the non-controvercial entry into the page. I really hope this doesn't start an edit war. It shouldn't. This is the product of the last few days of work. It reads as follows. On September 10th, 2012, Paramount confirmed the film's title as Star Trek Into Darkness. J. J. Abrams indicated that unlike the The Original Series films and yet in line with The Next Generation film series, his second Star Trek film would not include a number in the title. The decision was made to avoid repeating the sequel numbering that started with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan or making a confusing jump from Star Trek to Star Trek 12. Writer and producer Damon Lindelof addressed his team's struggle to settle upon a title, stating "there have been more conversations about what we're going to call it than went into actually shooting it." "There’s no word that comes after the colon after Star Trek that’s cool, ... not that Star Trek: Insurrection or First Contact aren’t good titles, it’s just that everything that people are turned off about when it comes to Trek is represented by the colon." Of the email chain co-writers kept containing every potential title, including many joke titles, Lindelof preferred Star Trek: Transformers 4 best "because it's technically available." Just like how the colon represents everything people hate about Star Trek (Damon Lindelof's words not mine, do I really need to cite this?) the i|I represents everything people hate about Wikipedia. Just like how they spent more time debating the title than making the movie .... We.... Oh my god.. (Like I said, hyper absurd and meta even. Does this say something more about the human condition than it does wikipedia/jjabrams crew? Are our entire lives just spend chasing each others tails?) In it's own way I hope this issue is a call to arms of sorts, so that this place can start to function again. Again, I take full responsibility for my nauseating conduct. I'm super sorry. I can understand why people wouldn't want to work with people possessing such passionate attitudes. This has been a learning experience, and an introspective one at that. And in the end isn't that what encyclopedias are for? And Star Trek? Xkcdreader (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC) PS: Remember, no matter how historic this message becomes (/s) you can never write about it on wikipedia, because I posted it here first and not in a newspaper, per rules 1, 7, 9 and eleventythousand. That paragraph looks fine to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Same. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I don't have any major issues with incorporating this version with what we already have. Maybe it's a little unnecessary, but in the spirit of compromise, willing to concede. Watch the formatting though - there seem to be some italics missing! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I don't understand. Why would we incorporate this into the old version? I just replaced the old one. Both would be completely redundant except for the unnecessary Conan reference. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Put it in. Then let's move on and hope that the next big debate will be about something that happens in the film. Nsign (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I propose we go for 'is Benedict Cumberbatch's hair black or really dark brown?' What do you think? :-) drewmunn talk 17:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I personally think it's OK as is in the article now, it was just the method of getting there that I found headache-inducing (that, and the possible self referencing). However, you've apologised from that, and shown you're willing to learn. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you can start afresh after this debacle (not the greatest place to start off, this article. No matter what you said, there'd probably be people bearing down on you. It's one of those 'articles of the moment'). Anyway, who wants some nice warm marmalade on toast? Doing my bit to dispel English stereotyping. drewmunn talk 17:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps its worth closing the section and the longer one above, to finally put a lid on it all? I would do it myself - but I don't know how. douts (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Done! For future reference, you can add {{hat}} to the top of the section (below the title), and {{hab}} at the bottom. drewmunn talk 19:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Will the hatting be stripped when these discussions are archived? I see no reason for them to stay hatted once in the archives... -sche (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I don’t believe so, but it would be nice if possible. —Frungi (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Mizabot removes the compression, but it's always possible we could; 10 days after the last comment, the section will be archived, so someone could do it manually after then if you wanted. drewmunn talk 07:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Norway's opening Date

Anyone else find it interesting that May 17th is Norway's National Day (like the US's July 4th) and the movie HAPPENS to come out in Norway before any other country? 216.110.25.2 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

FINALLY! Something about something other than the title!! :) Anyway, I wasn't aware of that. If we can find some reason why it's important I am sure it can be included. MisterShiney ✉ 17:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. However, it's likely that's just a hole the distributors could fill. It happens quite a lot; a seemingly random country gets a blockbuster before anyone else. drewmunn talk 17:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps JJ Abrams feels more people will see it in Norway if it is NOT on their National Day?...I'll look into it with some of my relatives their and also look (I)nto typical Norwegian movie habits on May 17th...maybe they just don't go to the movies that day as much for some reason. That would be a good reason to move the date up to the prior Wednesday.216.110.25.2 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Keith

If it opens in Norway before the 17th then the date in the infobox needs to be changed, since we document the date of first exhibition. Betty Logan (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If it hasn't been done already, I will do it. I haven't found out WHY it is opening the Wednesday prior, but both Norway and Egypt's opening dates are May 15th. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/releaseinfo )...Egypt's date isn't on that list so I can'at include it in the article, but it does open there on the 15th too.Dangerkeith3000 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Amended "Title" Section Into Darkness

---

---

:::::::::::::::::::::::::I N T E R M I S S I O N:::::::::::::::::::::::::

---

---

E P I S O D E 'V'

COMPROMISE NEARS as a SOLUTION ARISES

Multiple people contended there were too many citations, now there are ten.

One sentence in particular caused opposition, due to alleged WP:SELFREF. (Beware potential WP:COI).

Concerns that text was too technical, verbose, and synthesized have been addressed and hopefully corrected.

The following text was amended to the Title section of the 'Star Trek Into Darkness' article section on February 5th.

---

The film title, Star Trek Into Darkness, is grammatically ambiguous in light of traditional use of the series title Star Trek and raised questions concerning the stylistic intent of the title's authors with respect to possible interpretations of the title's constituent structure and orthography. Trek can now function as verb, and due to the lack of demarcating colon, Into Darkness may no longer imply a subtitle to the series title Star Trek but instead be part of the phrase Trek Into Darkness. In regard to prior Star Trek film titles, star Simon Pegg dictated "How do you get past the curse of the ":"? You get rid of it altogether. Trek ain't a noun, it's a verb. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS MAY 2013" Paramount's initial marketing synopsis used Star Trek Into Darkness as a declarative phrase and began: "In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness." In reference to a webcomic lampooning a lengthy debate over the title's orthography, The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris characterized the situation as "a swirling maelstrom" and recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics, speculating that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title."

References: collapsed to save space

Extended content
References

---

Justifications

• Applicable Rules, policies, rules, guidelines, and essays:

Extended content

WP:BEBOLD - Just do it! WP:IAR - If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. WP:PRINCIPLE - The rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. WP:COMMON - Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. WP:BURO - Rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. A procedural error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it. WP:TOO_LONG!#Content_removal - Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length; see WP:Content removal#Reasons for acceptable reasons. WP:Content_removal#Reasons - If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal. WP:Content_removal#Consensus_on_removal - If a second editor steps in on one side, and two editors outnumber one, the two can make fewer than three edits each toward a cause, while more than three edits will be required to make the minority cause take place. (Let's NOT start one of these!) WP:SIZE - Consider reader attention span, readability, information saturation. Most articles are very small (under 10k) there is no bandwidth need to exclude material. WP:Abundance and redundancy (essay not rule, policy, or guideline) - It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war. In many cases edit wars are based on a premise that: "material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article". Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content. (As an essay, consider WP:Abundance and redundancy with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.) WP:PRIMARY - A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. WP:Notability#SPIP - The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself have have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. WP:SUBJECT#Articles_are_about_their_subjects - If publicity regarding an article is significant, that information would not be included in the article, unless it is relevant to the topic of the article itself. (Kevin Morris' comments in regard to J.J. Abrams' marketing tactics and the debate he caused is relevant to the topic itself. Thus, WP:SUBJECT does not apply and as a criticism is invalid. "The article is explicitly and specifically about Wikipedia" and thus falls foul of WP:SUBJECT is an invalid claim.) WP:UNDUE - Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. It should be easy to name prominent adherents. WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information - Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics databases, Excessive listings of statistics. WP:SELFREF - The belief that "self-references should be avoided" is a Manual of Style guideline not a rule. (The Daily Dot has [oversight] and is an appropriate source for commentary on J. J. Abrams choice in selecting the film's title. Desire to obscure the perception that Wikipedia is WP:LAME is not a valid reason in and of itself to remove an otherwise appropriate, neutral, accurate cited contributions. Beware a potential WP:COI.) WP:FANCRUFT - (essay not rule, policy, or guideline) - A term sometimes used to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans. While "fancruft" is often a succinct description, it may be regarded as pejorative and uncivil. (As an essay, consider WP:FANCRUFT with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.) WP:SPA - Many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest [...] here to build an encyclopedia. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. Don't WP:BITE. Think hard before tagging a single-purpose account and make sure you are doing so with good reason. Be courteous. WP:AGF - Editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict. WP:Cooperation - Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. WP:BITE - Newcomers may be hesitant to make changes due to fear of damaging Wikipedia. Teach them to be bold. To a newcomer, the large number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is overwhelming. Ignorance of the rules can often be expected. This is a place where anyone may edit and therefore it is each person's responsibility to edit, rather than to criticize or supervise others. WP:BEBOLD - Just do it!

• Conclusion: The new paragraph is a brief, Encyclopedic, accurate, well-sourced, relevant, and a neutral overview of the inherent ambiguity in the phrase Star Trek Into Darkness that deftly handles the topic without putting unnecessary emphasis on Wikipedia. It does not violate WP:SUBJECT or WP:UNDUE. WP:SELFREF is only a suggestion. You don't need WP:Consensus to WP:BEBOLD, you need WP:Consensus for WP:Content_removal. I repeat, You don't need consensus to make changes, you need it to revert them. The burden of proof is on those people who want content removed, not the people contributing content. If this practice is flipped, the people doing so completely undermine WP:BEBOLD. Those in favor of removal need to come to a valid WP:Consensus justifying why a sentence needs to be removed.

• Result: The first five sentences explain the history of the title and the second five respectfully, clearly, and concisely explain why the title is confusing, and the resulting effects caused by the confusion.

• Note of Caution: I tried as hard as possible to be tactful and respectful with regard to the i|I debate and the feelings of those involved. Users involved in the initial i|I debate are the partial subject of a secondary source used, and could possibly hold a WP:CONFLICT of interest if they propose removing this contribution. I ask any of those users to please tread lightly. I fully understand this contribution may be controversial because it could shed some negative light on how WP:LAME this place is. That alone does not justify its removal. If you have a suggestion that can make this contribution better, by all means help and propose better wording. It goes against everything Wikipedia stands for to revert it, just because you don't want it here or don't personally find it interesting. Let's not start another war. An edit war over this contribution would create more bad press than allowing the contribution to stand. To quote Joshua, one of the smartest computers of all time, "The only winning move is not to play."

• Final Thoughts: I thank everyone who raised and explained concerns, their voices were taken into considerable account. The users Pfhorrest, douts, Eraserhead1, David93, and Whoosit all shared a sentiment of support for various incarnations of this contribution. Fletcher did not oppose a brief mention of the title being ambiguous and Frungi contended the topic was interesting. Although opposed, Nsign conceded it is acceptable for an encyclopedia but preferred to obscure the fact that Wikipedia is WP:LAME. Criticism, dialogue, and editing lead to better content. If I have misrepresented any of these people, they are more than welcome to correct me. I still believe this should have been a contribute first, edit afterwards situation, but gathering everyone's perspectives first helped make sure the contribution was appropriate and hopefully won't launch an edit war. (WP:REDUNDANT#Over-doing_it mentions Criticizing instead of editing. No one should have to read through this many pages of rules first to make sure their contribution is appropriate.) Telling users their contribution is WP:UNDUE and not helping to edit it is WP:BITEing. I hope everyone can take something positive away from the experience. Arguing and blocking content should not take precedent over helping edit it. The "I'm not going to waste my time helping you rewrite sentences" mindset is not beneficial to Wikipedia, and should be avoided. I hope my summary of the rules I learned about this week can be helpful in the future when this sort of situation arises. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Summary of Argument

Please leave this as its own subsection, so I can link to it, instead of repeating the same thing over and over across the talk page. Please don't debate/discuss in this section, keep it to the discussion sections below. Thanks for your cooperation!

My Position: WP:PRINCIPLE The rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. WP:SUBJECT#Articles_are_about_their_subjects If publicity regarding an article is significant, that information would not be included in the article, unless it is relevant to the topic of the article itself. (Kevin Morris' comments in regard to J.J. Abrams' marketing tactics and the debate he caused is relevant to the topic of the "title". Thus, WP:SUBJECT is an invalid reason to keep the DailyDot source from being used.) WP:Notability#SPIP - The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself have have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. (The "Wikipedia debate, is notable, because it has been written about by at least 4 authors.) WP:UNDUE It should be easy to name prominent adherents. WP:TOO_LONG!#Content_removal Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length; see WP:Content removal#Reasons for acceptable reasons. WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, consider it with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. WP:COMMON Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. WP:PRINCIPLE#Ignore_all_rules Rules cannot cover every possible circumstance and sometimes may impede us from improving the encyclopedia. In those cases, we should be bold and do what is best. In the same spirit, the letter of policy will always fall short of completely encompassing the spirit of policy. We should feel free to do whatever is most faithful to the spirit of the policy, whether or not the specific circumstance is spelled out in the policy. WP:SELFREF - The belief that "self-references should be avoided" is a Manual of Style guideline not a rule. (The Daily Dot has [oversight] and is an appropriate source for commentary on J. J. Abrams choice in selecting the film's title. Desire to obscure the perception that Wikipedia is WP:LAME is not a valid reason in and of itself to remove an otherwise appropriate, neutral, accurate cited contributions. Beware a potential WP:COI if your conduct [the i|I] debate is the partial topic of a secondary source. If you participated in the i|I and lost, the events may bias your vote.)

Analogy: This situation is akin to Bill Clinton preventing his blowjob scandal from appearing in the Bill Clinton, Famous Blowjobs in History and Presidential Impeachment, articles and INSISTING it be moved to Controversies involving Presidents and blowjobs. The idea that this contribution only belongs in Wikipedia in the media article is ABSURD. See also: WP:Abundance and redundancy. To repeat, in case I wasn't clear. WP:SUBJECT#Articles_are_about_their_subjects If publicity regarding an article is significant, that information would not be included in the article, unless it is relevant to the topic of the article itself. WP:SUBJECT is an invalid reason to keep the DailyDot source from being cited to quote an author's beliefs in regard to JJ Abrams and his choice of title, because the subject is the Title and Wikipedia's reaction. Articles can have multiple subjects. QED!

In Short/tldr: the WP:SUBJECT objection should be thoroughly debunked by now (see above), WP:UNDUE is a minor issue, but the page will fill quickly as the release date approaches, so is it REALLY this big of a deal?. It is worth spending thousands of words keeping five sentences you don't like out of an article. WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, and irrelevant. WP:SYNTHESIS needs to be determined, I personally believe I took care of it. Others need to weigh in on the issue. (sorry this is long.) Xkcdreader (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : : E N D : : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

---

---

Discussion

• Reverted per WP:BRD, WP:WEIGHT and all the other issues previously raised. It's an unnecessary paragraph that focuses too deeply on a trivial matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:Content_removal#Reasons - If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal.

I don't need Consensus to be bold and contribute, you need consensus to remove. This is not the previous proposal, and concerns have been addressed. Restore the text, discuss it on the talk page, and reach consensus. Scjessey does NOT have consensus to remove the contribution. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, per the above mentioned WP:BRD, edits considered controversial (as you yourself noted, you were bold) may be reverted before discussion. This is what is now happening. As for my opinion, I think the paragraph goes way too in depth for a fairly trivial matter. As I've said before, a sentence at most should cover it, and even that should probably wait a bit. drewmunn talk

Indeed. BRD has only one "revert" in the cycle, and that was used by me. Xkcdreader needs to self-revert and then discuss the matter here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I reverted Xkcdreader's revert on the basis of procedure, and I may pop a message on his talk if he doesn't respond here soon. drewmunn talk 13:47

"Xkcdreader needs to self-revert and stop wasting everyone's time" you mean? This is beyond a joke now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

cool cool. Are you willing to work on a compromise until this can get fresh eyes/go to mediation? 5 February 2013 (UTC) Xkcdreader (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not willing to work on compromise. We already have compromise in the content you inserted previously (before this paragraph). No further compromise is necessary, we are happy with what's there for now. Can I suggest you look at other articles for a while? It would seem more productive; of your 517 edits, I can't find a single one not to do with this article. We are currently at a stage of compromise, and it's unlikely anything further will be added from your suggestion at this time. I'd suggest taking some to improve other articles around Wikipedia; whether it be in the Star Trek, WP:FILM, or any other jurisdiction; sticking with one or two articles is generally not good practice for a newer editor. You'll find out more about how we work, and how your talents as an editor can be utilised. We understand you want to include your content in the article, but it's currently not consensus to do so. You were bold, now it's time to step down for a bit. drewmunn talk 14:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason not to just close the discussion, considering the issues have already been pointed out to this new and tenacious WP:SPA. It's a waste of everyone's time otherwise. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, what was added to the article wasn't really a compromise. There was unanimous agreement that that paragraph was appropriate. The disagreement was only over the second paragraph. There is disagreement over whether part two was appropriate, and no consensus was reached. At all. "Many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest [...] here to build an encyclopedia. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits. Focus on the subject matter, not the person." The five sentences I have just proposed DO need to be discussed by other people besides Scjessey and Rob Sinden. The other people involved where working towards consensus, not blocking contributions. This is all laid out above. This should not be closed and strongarmed without more eyes. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find more eyes. Everyone's bored of this now. However, consensus was reached. First half was accepted as a compromise. Second half rejected due to multiple concerns. We're not going to compromise the compromise. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The addition I made today has been substantially rewritten to address the issue of synthesis among others. This is a prejudice against me, you are not even reading the amended suggestion. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• STRONG OPPOSE THIS ADDITION. Jesus f*cking christ. We've just gone over this a million times. WP:UNDUE, WP:SUBJECT, WP:FANCRUFT, etc., etc., etc., ALL apply. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE. We'd made the compromise. Get over it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - obviously. I just wanted to make it clear. I think the existing paragraph as it stands right now is more than sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Note: Two users should not be able to hold a page hostage like this. They are the same two people that held it hostage with a lowercase i. drewmunn has a point I didnt read through all of WP:BRD Xkcdreader (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• You need to go and read WP:SPA as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Look. Your proposal was rejected, you compromised, closed the discussions, THEN decided to re-open the discussion almost immediately. YOU are the one holding the page hostage. You seem to think that if you just repeat the same proposal again and again and again, then you'll get your way. Just wait, in a minute, you'll claim that our opinions are invalid and that you've already debunked all of our arguments against your proposal. Worst. Editor. Ever. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not the same proposal. It is worded substantially differently than the original one. It went through multiple iterations. It is apparent to me you have not yet read the post I made. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is clear you are trying to improve the article. That is to be commended. It is clear you are working really hard to do the best job you can. That is to be commended too. But your proposal has been rejected for several reasons and your commendable dedication is now evolving into less-commendable disruption. Please let this go. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No one but the two of you have weighed in on the CONTENT OF THE CONTRIBUTION, since it has been modified to this form. When other people made suggestions they were taken into account and the contribution was rewritten. You have a clear conflict of interest to suppress this contribution. You also have no right to close this discussion before it happens. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the discussion was "closed" a bit prematurely and I have reopened it for the time being. But you must end your disruption now. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough.  :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's because there is no fundamental change to the content, you've just reworded it a bit. The concerns of WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:SUBJECT, WP:UNDUE, WP:FANCRUFT, all still apply. And to be honest, who the f*ck wants to read your thesis and summary of all the guidelines of Wikipedia? HOW is that helpful? PLEASE... GIVE IT A REST!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 7)The reason there aren't that many editors around this way any more is because most of them were driven mad by xkcd-gate (have you seen today's comic? I think we should go and discuss it on Talk:Google Maps). Anyway, how about this for a compromise: let this discussion be if you agree to take a back seat for a few days or so. Spend some time looking through other pages, making contributions, and improving your portfolio. Not only would you gain valuable experience of Wikipedia on a larger scale, you'd gain more respect from the editing community. Leave this conversation be, and we'll look at it, and invite some more opinions. We can't close it ourselves, because we're involved editors, so we'll ask along an admin as well, so you have an impartial opinion. Due process will run its course, and nobody will get overly enraged. drewmunn talk 14:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand ill shut up for a while, but if this is how contributing to wikipedia works, Id never try again. Which would probably make a lot of people happy so ... Xkcdreader (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If we all work together, then we're quite an amiable bunch! You caught us at the wrong time, and didn't fully understand Wikipedia's processes. Given time, I'm sure you could mature into a better editor, and it's good to facilitate that by editing a wider range or articles. drewmunn talk 15:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Very little desire to ever try this again. Still want to see this contribution through. Agreeing to shut up and not talk about it anymore, as long as appropriate channels handle the content itself and not my behavior Xkcdreader (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of the Actual Contribution

• No one has yet been allowed to discuss this contribution. Scjessey and Rob Sinden storm in, cause a scene and then close the discussion. It has happened THREE times now. This is not appropriate. The content needs to be analyzed by OTHER PEOPLE besides these two. It needs to be analyzed sentence by sentence and not thrown out whole. Scjessey and Rob Sinden do not need to make a single comment here, their opinion has already been voiced sufficiently, and EVERYONE knows exactly what their positions are. I'll agree to sit back if they do too. This proposal would be on its second iteration not fifth if they didn't keep controlling the conversation before it happens. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The content in question follows, and is collapsed to save space

Extended content

The film title, Star Trek Into Darkness, is grammatically ambiguous in light of traditional use of the series title Star Trek and raised questions concerning the stylistic intent of the title's authors with respect to possible interpretations of the title's constituent structure and orthography. In regard to prior Star Trek film titles, star Simon Pegg dictated "How do you get past the curse of the ":"? You get rid of it altogether. Trek ain't a noun, it's a verb. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS MAY 2013" Paramount's initial marketing synopsis used Star Trek Into Darkness as a declarative phrase and began: "In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness." In reference to a webcomic lampooning a lengthy debate over the title's orthography, The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris characterized the situation as "a swirling maelstrom" and recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics, speculating that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title."

First off, expect a rather large trout in a second. Secondly, I oppose any such inclusion at this time. That is all. drewmunn talk 14:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We've explained time and again why this is not suitable. I think a note on the admin boards to stop your disruptive behaviour is now in order. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

SMH. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

ENOUGH!!!! FFS. I'm getting sick of this BS. There is nothing wrong the suggested paragraph. Wikipedia is not mentioned anywhere in the text. The fact that a source mentions the debate we had here IS NOT a reason to exlcude that source from use. Thats WP:SUBJECT dealt with. WP:SYNTHESIS: Rob nd Simon have spouted this a few times but have failed to give any reason of what is actually violating it, so rather than acting like a pair of self-righteous jackasses, that might be useful so that something (if needed) can be done about it. As for WP:FANCRUFT NONE of us are in a position to determine what is of importance to others, and since its merely an essay, it's about as relevant as my little toe. Rather than trying to roadblock everything you dont agree with, Rob and Simon need to back the f*ck off and let other people comment. douts (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Calm! That's not so much the issue here at the moment. It's more that it was decided not to include it yesterday, and that was a compromise. On the side, the addition would make it a massive part of the article, and it's a fairly small issue compared to something like the identity of Benedict's character. It is therefore a bit weighty. Anyway, I would play some soothing music, but I don't really own any. So instead, I'll just say that a simple note of support would have sufficed. drewmunn talk 15:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You cannot use the Daily Dot reference, as this is a direct contravention of WP:SUBJECT. And the whole thing is WP:SYNTHESIS - it's been engineered in such a way to make a point from slight mentions in the (dubious) references. And it really isn't important in the big scheme of things per WP:UNDUE. And that is without even addressing the borderline WP:FANCRUFT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The WP:UNDUE issue is a minor one, since after the film is released, the article will bulk out much more and that issue will be solved. The Daily Dot reference is being used mainly as the source for the direct quote in the last sentence - which has nothing to do with wikipedia. So in that instance it is perfectly fine - the subject of an article is irrelevant when sourcing a direct quote from someone. douts (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"In reference to a webcomic lampooning a lengthy debate over the title's orthography, The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris characterized the situation as "a swirling maelstrom"..." is a direct reference to Wikipedia (albeit disguised), and therefore is not fine per WP:SUBJECT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, Ok. How about re-phrasing that last sentence to read - In reference to the unusualness of the title phrasing/punctuation DD writer KM suggested that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title" given his habit of "cleverly hiding secret messages" - or something similar and worded better, thus removing any reference to xkcd? Also, as far I can see having re-read the paragraph, only the 2nd sentence could possibly be synthesis, the rest is backed up in the sources. douts (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

None of the proposed paragraph is necessary. What is already in the article is just fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's unnecessary and unencyclopedic. It's making a mountain out of a molehill per WP:UNDUE, and is scraping the bottom of the barrel for references in order to make a point. KM's comment is a speculation as a commentary on his article about the Wikipedia debate, so will always be too self-referential for WP:SUBJECT. About the only usable bit is the Simon Pegg comment, which is completely trivial and irrelevant. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I give up - trying to discuss something with you 2 and reach a comprise is like trying to teach french to a dog. Never in the 6, nearly 7 years I've been here have I seen anyone assume that adding something to an article will make it worse. You've repeatedly ignored attempts to reach a comprise on a version that can be added (and whilst I acknowledged it might be slightly weighty atm, WP:POTENTIAL stipulates that it should still be added given that the article will bulk up after the release of the film) and you've done all you can to prevent anything that you dont agree with. So do what you will, prevent articles being improved, act like a government censor, I dont give a shit anymore. Until someone puts you 2 back in your box nothing will ever get improved here. douts (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I second every word of what douts has said. I will also give up until something can be done from a higher level. Ive never seen something like this either. Can we call the admins to weigh in, or does it need to go through all the proper WP:BURO first? An encyclopedia that prefers not to have content. In all my years. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue if you want to alert an admin. Your conduct has been incredibly disruptive, so I'm not concerned. Okay, maybe I lost my temper a little earlier on today, but you did re-open a discussion not 24 hours after apparently agreeing a compromise. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop pretending it was a compromise. There was full consensus that the first paragraph was good enough to include. There was no consensus for the second paragraph. The first paragraph was included and the second paragraph is still up for discussion. You seem to think you closing the debate means there was a compromise. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Claim: Rules are being used to block otherwise valid content. Ironically, ignore all rules is being ignored. Some in opposition are possibly opposing because a secondary source is a direct result of their conduct. This is the most basic Conflict of Interest possible. It's like Clinton blocking anything related to his blowjob. Scjessey and Rob Sinden should have NO SAY in this matter because the secondary source in question is written about the mess they participated in. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop dictating who can have a say. This issue is dealt with at WP:SUBJECT and is clear. WP:IAR should only be invoked when it improves Wikipedia and does not divide consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if the entire internet points at me and laughs because of the part I played in the move debate. I am completely comfortable with my position and I don't care what anyone says. There's no COI. My reasons for rejecting the proposed addition have absolutely zero to do with the move debate. My objections are based on a series of issues that I've already outlined several times. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please explain to me why you should have a vote in blocking a source referencing your conduct? Xkcdreader (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not referencing my conduct. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

And I have no problem with that material being included in pages about Wikipedia in the media (or whatever it was) as I've already stated. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Question: This is an issue of what UNDUE weight means. Currently the Star Trek Into Darkness article does not mention the verb issue AT ALL. Is the most appropriate weight for this subject NONE? This is an encyclopedia, and we are not going to explain the grammar of a confusing movie title? Xkcdreader (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. That's what WP:UNDUE is about. The discussion mostly took place here, not in the world at large. It doesn't matter in the realms of the film whether it's a verb or not. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Even if there is a very minor WP:SYNTHESIS it should be classic WP:IAR because no misleading claim or theory is being advanced. it is a pure statement of fact. (I think we keep collapsing discussion trees as they happen so this doesn't get completely out of hand.) If synthesis is a serious issue all we have to do is split sentence 2 into two sentences (but this is not preferrable because it adds completely unnecessary verbosity.) Xkcdreader (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes - you are fitting the references around the viewpoint, trying to advance it in a certain manner. People have pondered meaning, but it's of no consequence, just speculation - you seem to be trying to make it concrete. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I still think xkcdreader's contribution is fine and the arguments being provided against it look like they are clamoring for anything to throw just to shut down the matter of title-related issues here. While I agree that there's been (way more than) enough of this and everyone should move on as soon as possible, I think the direction to do that in is to let xkcdreader's contribution stand, at least until an uninvolved editor (no canvassing!) objects to it. With regards to the claims made against it:

• It is a small addition in its own low section of an article that is sure to grow quickly (the article that is, not the section) upon the film's release, and so not undue weight.
• It is as well-sourced and verifiable as one could want. It claims the filmmakers and commentators both have made much ado about the title, sourced to quotes from filmmakers and commentators to that effect. What more can you ask?
• I don't see the basis for claims of synthesis. The statements made look pretty well-backed by their sources, and any running-together of multiple sources to a single compound sentence is clearly for the sake of brevity (needed to avoid undue weight) and prose, not pushing any claim not evident from the sources.
• It doesn't discuss Wikipedia itself (though one of many sources mentions it), and so doesn't violate WP:SUBJECT.
• Lastly WP:FANCRUFT is not policy, is a borderline pejorative acacusation, and speaking as someone with only an idle interest in Star Trek (I've watched it, but would not call myself a Trekkie or Trekker, and I'm only still reading this because I auto-watch every page I edit) and a clean established history on Wikipedia focused on unrelated subjects, I found it encyclopedically interesting that the filmmakers themselves cared about things like the colon and whether 'Trek' was a verb (if it was only outside commentators I would agree that it was much ado about nothing and unencyclopedic).

Seriously, I understand that strict policy means xkcdreader was bold, got reverted, and now discussion happens. But discussion has been happening. For way too long. And this is not a big article-destroying thing in question here. I know I would be hesitant to concede to this on an article I WP:OWNed, but can the objectors here just let it slide for a while so all this talk-page thrashing can finally settle down? Let it stand for a week and see if any passers-by object. Or call a 3PO if you want to attract passers-by to give their opinions. Xkcdreader seems like a very diligent editor who is eager to improve the encyclopedia, and I would hate to have you guys scare him off by objecting so vehemently to such a minor thing. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Locking the page

Might I suggest that an admin lock this article (and maybe this talk page, too, LOL) for a week to give everyone a break? (How has that not happened yet?) -sche (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge Talk Page's arnt generally locked, but the length of some discussion does raise a few eyebrows.... MisterShiney ✉ 19:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, considering the edit warring, so it's done. I was already considering locking the talk page, and if the vitriolic discussions continue, I probably will. Keep it collegial, folks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've already warned xkcdreader that he's going beyond passionate to disruptive, so blocking would be another option other than protection. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocking him would be entirely inappropriate. All he's done it try to improve the article. He addressed concerns where they raised and re-wrote the paragraph he was suggesting repeatedly to deal with any valid issues. He even suggesting creating a new article (which SarekOfVulcan (talk) wrongly rejected imho) for the bulk of the addition so that WP:WEIGHT would not be an issue here. This would have been resolved a while ago had it not been for 2 EXTREMELY over-zealous editors who are seemingly intent on roadblocking anything they personally disagree with. His only flaw was to inadvertently make a bit of a mess of the talk page though nothing than more than inexperience. How the hell do you expect to attract new editors when people are treated the way he has been? douts (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A new article discussing the naming of the film and the Wikipedia coverage thereof would be completely inappropriate per WP:SUBJECT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

For god sake, you're obsessed with this fanciful notion that the only place the grammatical ambiguity of the title was discussed was here. IT WASN'T. And that's irrelevant anyway since the article that was rejected was ABOUT the grammatical ambiguity of the title. The wikipedia discussion only lasted as long as it did because you and scjessey insisted on rigidly sticking to a guideline that is supposed to flexible and failed to use a tiny bit of common sense. END OF. douts (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That narrative has been pushed quite enough. The number of !votes in the move request was 17 for "Into" and 11 for "into", and that lack of a clear consensus was why it remained as "into" for as long as it did. So let's dispense with this bullshit that it was 2 people against everyone else. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. It is the more valid argument. WP:COMMONNAME is a POLICY and WP:MOS is a GUIDELINE. Guidelines should not have been overruling policy. The 11 people who voted for into were wrong, plain and simple. To quote WP:COMMONNAME "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Regardless of what the movie was called, the ONLY correct solution was to call it what people call it in the press. Which was Into. The debate should have ended after about ten sentences. Remember, it took admin intervention to implement Wikipedia:COMMON sense. A group of 11 stubborn people shouldn't be able to prevent anything from ever happening. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reality check: do any of the sections on this page have a chance of not becoming a new platform for continuing this debate? This is for discussing the possible locking of the page, not for pointing fingers and attacking people's opinions.. drewmunn talk 20:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's true, Drew, but we are all here for mainly one reason: to feel important. We believe that editing articles and passing down guidelines and upholding them that we are of value and contributing to the world because in the real world we are all but the background people not doing anything monumental or exciting or even remotely needed. And when our views are questioned, we get hot-headed and passionate and aggressive in order to force those views onto other contributors. And it's not just one or two offenders, it's all of us. That's why so many edit wars and lengthy, stupid discussions occur, because we can never agree. We will never agree. If it's not here. it will be on another article. We may as well accept that. RAP (talk) 20:54 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. - SudoGhost 20:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

-_-. RAP (talk) 21:01 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocking the verbose, poorly-wiki-lawyering, SPA should come well ahead of full protection of a well-participated talkpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Bollocks. So the guy sees the webcomic and comes here clearly with the intent on trying to improve the article, and you're suggesting he gets blocked for trying to do what we should all be trying to do?? No wonder this place is the fucking laughing stock of the web. Granted he wasnt perfect in his methods, but he's a newbie ffs. I daresay you made some cock ups when you started editing here - I know I did. NOBODY is perfect. GIVE YOUR FUCKING EGO'S A REST! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douts (talk • contribs)

• When a student, enthusiastic, neither right nor entirely wrong, just keeps talking, doesn't listen, and repeatedly jumps to new angles on the same topic, you should send them away for a week. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

... And "thou should not get involved in cyclic arguments on Wikipedia when a good DVD box set is available" Paul 3:14. I suggest everyone has a nice beverage (alcoholic as necessary), and calms a little more. We're clearly in no state to be arguing this, so let us at least have a ceasefire for a bit. Whether that's a gentlemen's accord, administrator action, or locking of the page, we need time out. drewmunn talk 22:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Time to talk about non-controversial stuff like politics, religion and why Tottenham Hotspur will always be better than Arsenal. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, Man United all the way. RAP (talk) 22:31 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry guys, Spurs, Arsenal, the mancs, it doesnt matter. Everton are better than the lot of yas! COYB!!! :p douts (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Since we got this paged locked for acting like jackasses, could an admin change "J. J. Abrams had indicated that unlike some of the earlier titles in the film franchise, his second Star Trek would not include a number." to "J. J. Abrams had indicated that unlike some of the earlier films in the franchise, his second Star Trek would not include a number in its title." so it doesn't read as if the movie won't have any numbers in it? Xkcdreader (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  No need, it's perfectly obvious in context. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So you would it rather be less clear just to prove a point? There is no reason not to make the sentence more clear. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it would be fair to block Xkcdreader on the grounds of disruption without first offering him another course of action. The main objection to his proprosals seems to be WP:SUBJECT, so I recommend he starts an RFC to tackle the specific question of whether WP:SUBJECT is applicable here. RFC responders don't want to read an 800k page, nor will they be particularly interested in what the section covers or what he wants it to say, but it is reasonable to ask for an outside opinion as to whether WP:SUBJECT applies to the sources he wishes to use. If it does then he should drop this permanently; if it doesn't then the next step would obviously be dispute resolution. If he agrees to do that, and promises to not drag an RFC into yet another content debate then we can get this page unlocked and move this thing forward. Betty Logan (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Personally, I can't see the justification for the locking of the article page. There was no edit war, and although the discussion has been heated, editors were discussing here on the talk page. Yes, I've found Xcreader's actions here on the talk page frustrating, but as a new editor, he has to learn how Wikipedia works somehow. However, there does come a point when you have to realise you're flogging a dead horse and move on! (And we all need to remember that sometimes.) --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Archive a large portion of the talk page

I think it's time to start archiving some of this embarrassment. Anyone agree? RAP (talk) 22:27 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The bot archives stuff automatically after 10 days of inactivity on a thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

...and we could turn the dial (|algo = old(10d)) at the top of this page a little and make it archive things more quickly, if necessary. -sche (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure all pages have a hard limit of 2 mega bytes in size. Currently this page has 793,969 bytes, so we'd better archive it soon. -- YPNYPN ✡ 03:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, yes, but ~800,000 bytes is nowhere near 2MB. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

See the section immediately above this one. -sche (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)