Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness

Khan?

I suggest removing references to Khan until after opening weekend, as this could accidentally ruin the movie for people before they have a chance to watch it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.191.11 (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

http://index.hu/kultur/cinematrix/2013/03/26/star_trek_exkluziv/ – The author of this article states that she was shown the first quarter of the film at a Berlin press conference, and that the antagonist is Khan indeed. – 146.110.50.34 (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not inclined to believe. The information provided by others who have seen the first section of the film does not correlate with this, and I'm not sure of the notability of that particular source. For now we should stick with the official information. drewmunn talk 07:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

(Index.hu − 146.110.50.34 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC))

It is only a month away now until it's being released. And we'll know then who he really is. Not that it matters, but I don't believe it is after other stuff being released about him. And it seems like the only reason for it to be him would be to make another reference at the classic series. We'll know in a month who he truly is though once the film is released worldwide or even when reporters go and see the premiere of the film (if there is going to be one) and info will be released then. Charlr6 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The movie premiered in Australia. It is Khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As with everything in this world, we'd need a reliable citation please. I'm bowing out here so I don't spoil the movie for myself, but you can't add it in without a source that passes our notability guidelines. drewmunn talk 06:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's filmed fiction, not *real*. Goodness: is this good enough-- http://furiousfanboys.com/2013/04/star-trek-into-darkness-premiered-in-sydney-the-truth-is-here-spoilers/ 130.111.163.179 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Harrison = Khan confirmed in SPIEGEL review: http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/kino/star-trek-into-darkness-zweiter-enterprise-einsatz-von-j-j-abrams-a-897905.html —13:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.130.134.150 (talk)

Here is the Der Spiegel magazine German to English translation link from translate.google.com and here is the relevant line: "Supreme Commander Marcus ("Robocop" Peter Weller in a bang batch appearance) sends Kirk, Spock and Uhura (Zoe Saldana), [on] a black ops mission to eliminate the villains. Turns out to be well-known "Star Trek" villain Khan, a genetically engineered super-human, which was taken from highly conspiratorial designs from the past in order to provoke a war with the Klingons." 5Q5 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I've seen every edit mentioning Khan, apparently sourced or unsourced, has been rejected. Why, may I ask? Surely it's not 'encylopediac' to revert something on the basis of "it's supposed to be a surprise"? ggctuk (2005) (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have seen that information added to the article with no source given. I have seen that information added to the article with an unreliable source (like IMDB) given. I have not seen that information added to the article with a reliable source given. So to date I would say that the removals have been justified. If you want to add the information now and cite Spiegel, it should be allowed to remain. 99.192.54.88 (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I know this will be met with "Just because it's so in other articles doesn't mean it applies to this one", but every film article I've seen, very little, if any, of the plot is openly sourced at all. I'm not saying that should apply to this article, of course, especially given the curtain of secrecy surrounding the film's plot from Paramount's end. But I would love to see how a plot section is supposed to be sourced. I'm not aware of the Spiegel source, so I have no idea of its authenticity. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC) No doubt that is still being debated. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

First, I thought you were talking about listing Khan in the cast section, not the plot. There is it not unusual to have sources cited. Second, in cases where questions of plot are controversial, it is not unheard of for them to be cited to a source as well. Plots can have citations just like any other section of any article can. Include the citation in the exact same way. When there is no dispute that the film itself is usable as a primary source and no dispute about what is in the film, it is standard not to have citations in a plot section, but it does not mean that they are not permitted. Third, there is no question that Speigel is a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. The link to the article is provided above, so it can be used as a source for content for this or any other Wikipedia article. There is nothing there to debate. 99.192.54.88 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Khan also confirmed in AICN review: http://web1.aintitcool.com/node/62238 If you ask me you can add Khan to the cast instead of "Harrison", which is just a pseudonym in the film. —20:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.50.101.31 (talk)

Regardless of so called "confirmation" from secondary sources, the only way it will be included in the article is through one of two things, the studio/Abrams comes out and says it outright, or through general release. I would also urge you that if you are a registered editor, that you log in and use your account, not doing so is in violation of WP:SOCK. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(1) Can you point to the wikipedia policy that says that secondary sources including reliable sources like magazines and newspapers cannot be used for posting information about film casting? If not, it looks like you just made that up.

(2) You need to re-read WP:SOCK. Your claim that it is a violation for users with accounts to make edits while not logged in is wrong. 99.192.54.88 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that its a questionable addition that has been surrounded in so much controversy and red herrings in the past, until it has been released generally the information cannot and will not be added with out an official release from the film studio.

No it is not incorrect. It's quite clear "Editing logged out to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Where editors log out by mistake, they may wish to contact an editor with oversight access to ensure there is no misunderstanding." In other words, if you have an account use it. Not doing so is considered bad faith. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not against policy to edit from multiple ip accounts. Only to edit in order to get around a block or ban. And unless you feel that this is the case, its best not to accuse someone of socking unless you have viable proof.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I just find it a little convenient that an unknown IP comes in arguing for the inclusion of the information. Especially when his only edits have been on this page. Quack Quack. But you are correct. Just airing a few suspicions and giving said user time to come clean. If indeed he does have an account. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

And which other editor do you suspect that the ip belongs to? Can't have a Duck without and egg.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to wast space here discussing silly and baseless accusations, but I do have a comment on the actual subject of this thread. I previously asked MisterShiney, "Can you point to the wikipedia policy that says that secondary sources including reliable sources like magazines and newspapers cannot be used for posting information about film casting? If not, it looks like you just made that up." In his reply he cited no policy and merely asserted that "the information cannot and will not be added with out an official release from the film studio". So it seems clear that his declarations are not backed up by any Wikipedia policy. The information is legitimate to add along with the reliable source that supports it, just like any other content on any other Wikipedia page. 99.192.54.88 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

MisterShiney: other editors have provided sources that would normally be considered perfectly reliable by Wikipedia standards, and instead of answering their arguments, you have just point-blank declared that certain things will or will not happen. That's no way to collaborate. You don't own this article, and you can't just make up new rules for it. – Smyth\^talk 00:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to think MisterShiney is a representative of Paramount or something. Normally, after a premiere of a film, we can add further plot details of the film. Why not in this case? I see no reason, nor Wikipedia policy to do so? You want sources? Fine. A handful of reliable ones have been shown on this page, all snubbed by you. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's just rude, Ggctuk. You can address the edits. You can say that an editor is wrong. However, making personal attacks is stupid and counter-productive. Firstly, are you under the mad assumption that MisterShiney is going to magically turn around and say, 'gee, you're right' because you took a cheap shot at them? Secondly, uncivil behavior only breeds more uncivil behavior. So, maybe knock it off, and focus on the edits only. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And while we're at it, let's put the cards on the able. AintItCool news is a blog, and therefore unusable by us. So is FuriousFanBoys, for the very same reason. Do you happen to have any RS that notes Cumberbatch plays Khan? If so, the conversation is over, and the info goes in. If not, we cannot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Four different editors in the above conversation have mentioned no less than five different times that Spiegel, an unquestionably reliable source, has reported the information about Khan. The first editor posted a link to the article. The second one posted a link to an English translation, for those who want to check the source but don't read German. The third (me) wrote, "If you want to add the information now and cite Spiegel, it should be allowed to remain." The fourth editor said he was unaware of the Spiegel article. Then I again (the fifth mention) replied to tell him that the article was linked earlier in this thread. Then, just two comments above your most recent ones, a fifth editor (Smyth) wrote that "editors have provided sources that would normally be considered perfectly reliable by Wikipedia standards". So it is peculiar that you mention only the links that were given to AintItCool news and FuriousFanBoys, each of which was only mentioned once above while ignoring Speigel, mentioned in five comments by name and linked twice. 99.192.68.223 (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.54.88)

It wasn't an oversight, anon98; I do consider it a good source, but it's just one source. If this information is so very, very important, why isn't every reliable source shouting it from the rooftops? The quick answer is, they will - once its in wide release. There is no [WP:CABAL|conspiracy]; I could really give a rat's ass, personally, about the minor revelations of a feature film. But we all edit here with the understanding that we work together and follow a fairly relaxed set of rules. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jack, you are either lying when you say "It wasn't an oversight" or you were editing in bad faith when you asked, in reply to ggctuk, "Do you happen to have any RS that notes Cumberbatch plays Khan?" (The emphasis on the word any was yours in the original comment.) You could not have asked that question in good faith if you were aware of the Spiegel reference at the time.

Now you are saying "it's just one source". I suspect more bad faith, because you should know that there is no Wikipedia policy requiring that multiple sources be found before a fact can be added. You also have suddenly changed your argument from questioning whether there is "any" source to asking for more than one. "Just one" is sufficient unless there are sources that directly contradict each other. So unless you have a reliable source saying that he isn't Khan, there is no conflict and one is enough.

You also ask "If this information is so very, very important, why isn't every reliable source shouting it from the rooftops?" and say "There is no conspiracy." This, again, suggests bad faith because you certainly know that lots of reliable sources that know facts about film plots refrain from writing about them (even long after a film has been released) because they hold back what are regarded as "spoilers". There is no mystery why some reliable sources have not printed the information. If you didn't know that (and how could you not know that?) just Google news stories about the film that use the word "Khan" and you will easily find several examples where they mention the discussion of whether or not Khan is in the film and then say that they won't "spoil" the information, making it clear that they know but choose not to say.

But you already know that most media outlets choose not to report "spoilers", so you are not really mystified that other sources have not reported this, are you? 99.192.68.223 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

New Poster 2

I know this is probably being really picky, but should the alt for the new poster name the ship as the Enterprise? There is nowhere that I can find explicitly stating it to be. It's general assumption, but do we have anything solid enough to physically state that? drewmunn talk 18:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd leave it off. Better to stick with what's explicit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've made that change then. If there's any backlash, we can deal with it then. drewmunn talk 21:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Good Lord... Why not go the next step and say that it's only a model, or only an artist's rendering of a make-believe ship? What other ship could it possibly be, given what is shown in the previews? This is taking Wikipedia standards to a ridiculous level, like visiting the page on Air and saying that it needs references... DeeJaye6 (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Colon Revisited

May I ask why people have so resisted making the title "Star Trek: Into Darkness"? It matches the previous 10 movies' titles in Wikipedia, and none of those movie's posters or official sites had a colon. They simply had the same thing this movie has: a small "Star Trek" above the subtitle, "The Motion Picture," "First Contact," "Insurrection" or whatever. (The previous movie being the exception, of course.)

Putting the colon in makes the title more accurate; this is the eleventh movie in the franchise to have a subtitle, and the first of those whose Wiki page was made so inaccurately. Who in their right mind thinks that the "Star Trek" in this title is a complex verb, as though one were "star trekking" into darkness? And if they actually believed that, why wasn't "The Voyage Home" done the same way?

In closing, there is plenty of precedent for putting the colon in place and making this title more accurate.

Recommend changing the page title (and related pages speaking of the movie) to "Star Trek: Into Darkness" for the sake of accuracy and consistency.

DeeJaye6 (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason we don't include a colon is because the film-makers are on record explicitly stating that the title doesn't have a colon.[1] Also, I don't believe any reliable sources use a colon. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

DeeJaye6, there was a very large discussion about the article title a few months ago, to the point that it warranted an XKCD comic. Both the colon and a lowercase "i" were discussed, but ultimately, since pretty much all other sources write the title this way, we are doing the same. My understanding is that other examples have mixed cases (e.g., Star Trek Generations vs. Star Trek: Generations), but so far, this one is pretty consistent in just this current title being used most of everywhere. Wikipedia is not necessarily a "leader" in these cases; it follows what others do and say. A different title from everyone else would be too contrarian. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur with my two colleagues. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This issue has been discussed to death and doesn't need to be revisited. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. No other Star Trek movie had a colon in the title, and yet everyone accepts that one belongs (granted, not for the most recent one that lacked a subtitle entirely). The editing going on in this one ignores common sense in favor of nitpicking. Unfortunately, the few nitpickers are more vocal than those who prefer common sense, so I will just leave it at that and hope that: you folks see common sense; others who see common sense speak up; and that no one takes this as a reason to change the other titles to match this mistake. --DeeJaye6 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's you who's being obtuse. The director JJ Abrams specifically states that this film is "a colon-free zone" and that the movie represents a "trek into [darkness]" (Interview with Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo, May 13th - download the Podcast if you wish). Putting in the colon would mean the director's vision of the movie would not make sense in the title. 133.28.101.101 (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the source of the plot??

Extended content

The film has not been released as of yet, which prevents the editorship to work collaboratively on the plot summary. Even more important than that, its a enermous copyvio. It's gone until opening day.. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC) How is it a copyvio? Doesn't it have to have been copied from somewhere else first? Whilst I do agree that if it has not been released officially then it prevents other editors from colaberating, but where does it say we don't have plot summaries till opening day? MisterShiney ✉ 00:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC) The film had its Australia premiere the other day [2] so I don't know if that's enough; I do know that spoilers are permitted so the question would seem to be is the Australia premiere enough to post the plot. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Also, I cited the premiere in the article as well. The film premiered on April 23 according to this citation, so I think that the addition of the plot summary is necessary at the moment. We had a similar case about this at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film) before the film's US release, as well as Skyfall. Per WP:FILMPLOT, as a plot summary, the film itself is a source after all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Full-protected for three days while this is sorted out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Plot summaries are based upon the consensus version of the plot points; how is that at all possible when the film hasn't seen general release? Granted, it might indeed be the plot (in which case, some film reviewer in Australia has forever fucked themselves out of future press tickets by posting plot points - a basic prohibition in film reviewing), but then again, it could be some elaborate hoax by some fans (or anti-fans). In either case, we cannot post the plot until general release, as it interferes with the film studio's right to make money. Why see the film when they can just read the plot here? It opens WP to some rather unpleasant legal consequences that we should avoid. I feel pretty strongly about this, and think that we might have to initiate an RfC or bring in some admins on this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC) "we cannot post the plot until general release, as it interferes with the film studio's right to make money." That's irrelevant. The only thing which could make this copyvio is if it has been posted elsewhere. What you really should be concerned about is whether there are reliable sources (including the film itself per WP:WAF, which apparently it has been released in Australia) which confirm the basic plot points. If that is the case, then there is absolutely no reason we should not cover the plot per WP:SPOILERS. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC) I'm not convinced of the "irrelevant" nature of screwing a filmmaker out of their right to profit from their work, but I'll set that aside for a moment. Additionally, I'm going to dismiss any argument abut spoilers, as that's a red herring. The main point is - and its odd that you would miss it - is that the plot summary is a community-based, agreed-upon version of transpired events in the film. We do not have that here. An exceedingly small group of people saw the film in Australia, and as far as I can tell, there is no RS review that details the plot in nearly as much detail as was edited into the article. Which, of course, there wouldn't be, as per the caveats I noted in the earlier post. So, this isn't about reliable sources either. If the editorship doesn't have the opportunity to see the film, they cannot very well contribute to the plot summary, can they? And on a more basic level, what the hell is the rush? I am growing ever more impatient with editors that treat Wikipedia like some forum site where speed is of the essence. IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO BE FAST IN WIKIPEDIA. Slow the hell down and wait for general release. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC) "The main point is - and its odd that you would miss it - is that the plot summary is a community-based, agreed-upon version of transpired events in the film." Just as wrong and just as irrelevant. A plot summary is no different from any other part of an article in that it must be sourced (usually to the film but it could be sourced to another item). That's the only criterion to write about it. It is again irrelevant whether the majority of the "editorship" has seen it. As for the rush, you're the only person who perceives it that way. Wikipedia moves at the speed it moves, whether that's slow or fast, and the only time we really need to control that speed is in the case of BLPs, which given we're talking about a plot summary—inherently fiction—does not apply here. Really, you would have a good argument if you could show that the plot as posted is wrong, but you have been unable to and seem undesiring of doing so. "I'm not convinced of the "irrelevant" nature of screwing a filmmaker out of their right to profit from their work, but I'll set that aside for a moment." I am. Wikipedia doesn't care in any regard for the actual topic or topic"maker" of the article (unless WP:BLP comes into play; again, irrelevant here). This is true whether we're talking about a company who has negative criticism or a book that was released yesterday or a news event that happened today. What we care about is verifiable, reliably sourced, appropriately weighted, encyclopedic, free content. That's it. Now, you might also argue, based on what I just said, that the plot as posted fails one or multiple of those items. You haven't, and apparently do not want to. Would you like to do so, or would you like to continue arguing from incorrect notions of what Wikipedia should care about? --Izno (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC) I've notified WT:FILM about this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Oh, you did, did you? :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Yep.We may need more uninvolved editors to get involved and comment on the situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Plot summaries in film articles are implicitly cited barring unusual circumstances (like the film being lost). We can easily add citation tags that state the film title, the director, the studio, etc. All that is readily available in the infobox, though, so we are not compelled to do that. To warrant referencing the film as a primary source, it must be accessible to the public in some form, such as being available in theaters or on home media. I think that a limited screening is not an event that opens the matter to verifiability, which means that "people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". This being the case, it is not appropriate to rely on a firsthand account when it cannot be checked by others. However, if early reviews write about the plot in more detail than what the official synopsis says, we can reference these for the plot summary. When the film is available to the public, we do not need to rely on such reviews and can shape the summary accordingly. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC) "To warrant referencing the film as a primary source, it must be accessible to the public in some form, such as being available in theaters or on home media." So what do you say about a film that was in theaters, but no longer is and has yet to be released in any home media? Is that film's plot no longer verifiable and so that plot summary should be removed? 99.192.64.5 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC) It "was in theaters". Therefore it was verifiable from the time it was in theaters. This was in a couple theaters seen by a few hundred at most. Unless they are all on WP editing, it can't be verified until the general release. Anyone could quite easily lie and make up a plot; given the small audience, we have no way of knowing if it is correct until the wide release. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC) STID was also "in theaters. Two theaters for two showings so far, and more to come. The people who saw it can verify the plot, just like for any other film that was in theaters. "We have no way of knowing if it is correct until the wide release." So does that mean that a film that has only been given a limited release in a hundred cities is not verifiable? But if 100 cities is enough and 2 is not, what is the magic number that is good enough? 99.192.64.5 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC) It was not "in theaters", it was in two theaters and not for its general release. Unless a large number of those few hundred who saw it come here to work on the plot summary, it can't be verified. TV shows are seen by anywhere from several hundred thousand to millions. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Family Viewing is a film that was released in 1987. As of July 2012, the plot summary on the Wikipedia page for the film was just a single short paragraph. In August 2012 I saw the film and then wrote a long plot summary for the Wikipedia page. There have never - before or since - been a large number of people who came to that page to work on the summary. It was only me. Now, does that mean that my plot summary is invalid? I would think not. The fact that I was the only person in the history of Wikipedia to take enough of an interest in that film to write a detailed plot summary does not make it wrong or unverifiable. It only takes one person who has seen the film to write an accurate summary. 99.192.64.5 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Hah, that's actually a good question. I'm not sure if I have a good answer for that, but I think such a scenario is exceedingly rare. First of all, it would necessitate a dispute over details in the plot summary during that time period. The more mainstream a film is, the more likely there would be attention to its article and its plot summary. However, this is offset by the nature of a mainstream film having a very narrow time period between the end of the film's theatrical run and its availability on home media. (There's also video on demand to consider...) Basically, the likelihood of such a scenario is negligible, and we could probably refer to film reviews for clarification about certain details since a lot of them recap the story. If that fails, we could just keep the plot summary from before the end of a run until it becomes available in other media. At worst, we could just use such reviews to put together a new summary (however incomplete) during that time period of not being available to the public. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Ok, but what about a film that is not "mainstream"? Those films have articles with plot summaries, too, and so the issue could be more real for them. In addition, you say, "First of all, it would necessitate a dispute over details in the plot summary during that time period." Doesn't that mean that the plot summary posted here for STID is not a problem unless some other editor comes along and says "I also saw the film and that summary is wrong"? In the absence of an dispute over the Australian summary's content, it would seem it should stand. 99.192.64.5 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC) In my experience, the threshold for verifiability is when a film is available to the general public. This means that screenings like those at festivals do not meet that threshold. A film in limited release meets that threshold because while it is not everywhere, it is at least available to the public. A person can go "anytime" to see the film and confirm the summary, much like a person can go to the Library of Congress "anytime" or buy an expensive book "anytime" to verify a citation. With a special screening, we can't do that. The time period I mentioned before is miniscule and not comparable to the screening-to-theatrical-run period you mention because circulation has been experienced. These are not hard-and-fast rules, of course; common sense should prevail. Plot summaries are supposed to exist in service of the real-world context provided in a Wikipedia article, so I do not think providing a full one upfront, before the film is available to the public, is of pressing importance. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC) I don't understand your distinction between a festival / premiere showing and one that is open to the "public". I have attended lots of films at film festivals. You just show up and buy a ticket. Anyone is allowed to come. And often at festivals a film has more than one showing. Surely that counts as being available to the public. I have also attended a couple of premieres where also it was simply a matter of buying a ticket before they sold out. The shows were just as open to the public as any film showing is. "A film in limited release meets that threshold because while it is not everywhere, it is at least available to the public. A person can go "anytime" to see the film and confirm the summary" I'm not trying to be a prick about this (although it might sound like it), but that's not true. If the film is in limited release and the shows are only at 7pm and 9pm, then there will be a lot of times that the film is not accessible to anyone. You have to wait for the next showing if you want to check the film to see if the Wikipedia summary is accurate. The same is true right now for STID. You just have to wait for the next showing of the film, and then you can go check. It's playing every couple of days right now, if you are in the right city. 99.192.64.5 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Hmm, I was under the impression that festival screenings were not often repeated (within that festival's schedule, I mean). I've really only focused on when a film premieres at a film festival and cannot recall anything about repeated screenings other than a screening exclusive to the press and a screening open to the public. Would it depend on the festival, perhaps? What is the current screening status for this film? I see that it premiered in Australia but am not clear what you mean about it screening every couple of days. Is it a festival setup or just sneak previews? In any case, while you make a good point, I do agree with Jack above when he says that it is not important to be fast on Wikipedia. This topic has a place here forever, and the film by its blockbuster nature will be available forever. So I think we can afford to wait. Still, I think you make an interesting point about what the threshold should be, and maybe we can hammer out something specific at WT:FILM or deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC) "I was under the impression that festival screenings were not often repeated." I guess that depends on the film and the festival. Ones I have been to have had repeat showings for films I have been interested in seeing. "What is the current screening status for this film? I see that it premiered in Australia but am not clear what you mean about it screening every couple of days." It had its Australian premiere last Tuesday. Then it had its Moscow premiere on Thursday. There are a few other similar premiere events around the world over the next couple of weeks before it opens wide. "I do agree with Jack above when he says that it is not important to be fast on Wikipedia." I agree 100%, and have argued the same thing on other talk pages (like when people go crazy about real time reporting of awards show results). It does not really matter to to me when the plot summary for this film is posted. But the general issue of how much input is needed or how "available" a film has to be to allow for a plot summary does matter to me, especially since I do care about articles for more obscure and less widely available films (see my comments about Family Viewing above). "maybe we can hammer out something specific at WT:FILM or deal with it on a case-by-case basis." I agree again. Actually, I first replied to this topic over there hoping to keep my part of the discussion on WT:FILM, but that didn't happen :-) 99.192.64.5 (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC) I agree with some above that commercial interests aren't an issue here, but simple verifiability is. I would suggest reverting the plot summary to an instance before the addition of the full plot and wait until a general release of the film so that it can be confirmed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC) I agree, wait a bit until there are multiple high quality sources to support a detailed plot in the article. Movies can be changed after a world premiere. Paranormal Activity had its ending changed after a festival premiere and before general distribution. Credits can change. I read the purported plot in the history log and, oh my god, some of it jumps the shark for me: Chekov named Chief Engineer, Spock Prime says Khan is the greatest enemy the Enterprise has ever known (ever hear of the Borg, Spock?). It's no wonder why people in Egypt, Taiwan, Peru, and elsewhere can see it in theaters before home fans in the U.S. The studio wants to make as much money as possible before the bad reviews start coming in. I heard a rumor Lex Luthor makes a cameo (kidding). If the plot in the history log looks accurate, then it looks like a good starting point. 5Q5 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC) There is absolutely no need to wait. Premiers aren't internal screenings or test screenings seen by only a handful of people. Hundreds of people attend these things and there are NEVER non-disclosure forms handed out. For a big budget movie like this, word of mouth is going to get out, and there won't be any major changes after the premiere (The Paranormal Activity comparison doesn't work because that didn't have a distributor when it was screened at the festival). Just because it hasn't been released to the general public doesn't mean it hasn't been seen by Wikipedia editors. See WP:GF Redredryder (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Plenty of reviews out there now. Having posted the comment preceding yours, it is the next day, so I did a search on news.google.com for "Star Trek Into Darkness" review and in my opinion it looks like there are sufficiient high quality sources now (Hollywood Reporter, Daily Mail, etc.) to support inclusion of a fuller plot. If some editor wants to source a plot I would say go for it. UPDATE: On the other hand, I should have read those reviews before posting this. Now that I have, they are pretty much flimsy on plot specifics as the reviewers don't want to upset fans, so I don't know what to tell you. I'll bow out of this discussion now. I will say that the reviews do seem to support the detailed plot in the History log. Good luck. 5Q5 (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Hundreds of people among 7 billion is a handful. The initial two showings were not open to the general public; the issue here is verifiability(we can't verify something that only one person on WP is writing about based on their observations). 331dot (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC) So only things released to the general public and understood by the entirety of Earth's population can be added to wikipedia? Don't be ridiculous. Just because YOU can't verify the plot doesn't mean there aren't other editors out there that can. The plot added earlier was perfectly fine. Why should we assume it was wrong? Redredryder (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC) It's not about assuming whether it's right or wrong; it's about the ability to verify the source of the material, just as with anything else. In most cases, that can be done by reading the book, website, or news source of some information. In this case, the source is the movie itself; one cannot view the film if it is not available to the general public. It doesn't have to be "understood by the entirety of Earth's population", but it needs to be available to more than a few hundred people. This will be moot soon anyway, though. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC) The fact that it has already had multiple screenings makes it verifiable. Yes, access to get into the premieres is difficult, but per WP:SOURCEACCESS that is not Wikipedia's problem. Members of the public have been able to see the film and per WP:GOODFAITH you have to assume the plot posted earlier was written in good faith. Again, just because you can't verify the plot, doesn't mean others can't. Redredryder (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Here is a source of the plot: Ain't It Cool News and another: The Telegraph (UK) Japanscot (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC) First of all, calm the heck down, Redredryder. It isn't about assuming good faith, tho' I can see how you'd get there. We don't know that the plot is real or not. The only way to be able to write the plot summary is to have the plot actually available to the editorship. Without it, we are relying on a small group of editors to tell us what they think happened in the film. Every single experienced editor in Wikipedia can list off the number of times when someone saw something in a movie and added it to the plot summary when it was just simply wrong. We are not in a hurry in Wikipedia, and that is a very hard concept for a lot of new editors to wrap their hot-holders around. This isn't a fan forum or somesuch where there are bonus points for being the first one to post a spoiler or fact. If anything, we post AFTER the information is pretty much been talked to death elsewhere - so much better to draw quotes from, after all. This is not King of the Hill. If the assumption of good faith enters into it at all, it would be that aspect which accepts that going slowly is the better course for an encyclopedia, where we are supposed to make every effort that our info is accurate and verified before we hit the 'enter. key. Trusting your fellow editor to will help you craft a plot summary that reflects a consensus view is at the very heart of AGF. Insisting that the rest of us can go take a flying leap bc a spoiler site decided to post the entire plot is counter-productive. We are in no hurry. We wait until we have a large enough pool of contributors to craft a consensus-based plot summary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC) "We wait until we have a large enough pool of contributors to craft a consensus-based plot summary." There not only is no Wikipedia policy that says this, it is actually contrary to Wikipedia policy. As I have mentioned (twice) above, I and I alone wrote the plot summary for the film Family Viewing. The reason for that is that there have never been other editors willing to contribute to writing it. So if we were required to, as you say, wait until we have a large enough pool of contributors to craft a consensus-based plot summary for that film, then it would still have no posted summary. But Wikipedia policy supports my summary being kept. If someone who sees the film comes along later and thinks I got something wrong or left something important out, the summary could change. But that does not invalidate my summary being posted now. Same goes here. If the few editors who have seen the film post a summary and then later others who have seen the film think they got something wrong or something important was left out, they can change it then. That's why all articles with plot summaries are open for revision in perpetuity. No posted summary is ever the final word. Now you might say "yeah, but it's different for smaller films like that" and I agree that it is different, but not insofar as Wikipedia policy on posting plot summaries is concerned. No policy says that any more than one editor has to have actually see a film for it to be valid for a summary to be added. No policy says that a summary needs multiple editors working in collaboration for a summary to be valid. Wikipedia policy entirely supports a plot summary being posted even if only one editor - like me in the case of Family Viewing - has seen the film and writes a summary. AGF means you don't remove that summary unless you have reason based on a reliable source to believe that the summary is not correct. 99.192.54.88 (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.64.5) Something can be posted in good faith and still be inaccurate or wrong. Were you taking notes during the film, or is your summary from memory? We don't know if it's correct or not because the only reliable source is the film itself. Why the rush? 331dot (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC) "Something can be posted in good faith and still be inaccurate or wrong." Yes, it can. That is true of any information posted on any Wikipedia page, so making that observation is not a reason to withhold adding content, because if it were a reason then nothing would ever be added. "Were you taking notes during the film, or is your summary from memory?" Are you asking about my summary for Family Viewing? If you are questioning the accuracy of that summary, please do so at the talk page there. But if you are asking a general rhetorical question about plot summaries, I would point out that we never know who is taking notes and who is working from memory on any plot summary. But that is no reason to object to a summary that has been posted for any film. AGF means that you assume that the person adding it has seen the film and got it right unless you have a specific reason to think otherwise. "Why the rush?" I didn't say there was a rush. That is not what I have argued. In fact, I have (several times now) pointed out that I think the idea that it is important to be quick is silly. But saying that there is no rush is, once again, not an argument that adding the plot now is not supported by Wikipedia policies. So that question missed the point entirely. 99.192.54.88 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, it can. That is true of any information posted on any Wikipedia page, so making that observation is not a reason to withhold adding content, because if it were a reason then nothing would ever be added. Having information that cannot be verified can be a reason. A movie not released or even available to the general public cannot be verified. I reviewed the SOURCEACCESS text; this isn't something that is merely difficult to get(such as purchasing a book or access to a website, or going to the one library in the world that has the material) it's impossible to get, as the film is not even available in a limited fashion after the two screenings. I don't know if the plot is right or not. It might be, but who knows. saying that there is no rush is, once again, not an argument that adding the plot now is not supported by Wikipedia policies. Perhaps not, but it is an argument to take our time to get it right. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC) "Having information that cannot be verified can be a reason." Yes, it can. But this is a very different claim from the one you made previously. On this point, I refer you to the discussion on WT:FILM. The plot to STID is verifiable by Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability. And there have been more than two screenings so far. "I don't know if the plot is right or not." That is not a reason to withhold the plot summary. It is not required that you know if it is right for it to be posted. "It might be, but who knows." As with any film, the people who have seen it are in a position to know. People have seen this film. They know. "...it is an argument to take our time to get it right." I have no objection to Wikipedia editors voluntarily deciding that even though they have seen the film and know the plot that they want to wait for more input from others to be sure that it is right. I do object to some Wikipedia editors telling other Wikipedia editors that they are not allowed to post a plot to a film until everyone sees the film. The latter is a violation of Wikipedia policy. 99.192.54.88 (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Err, which policy would that be? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC) I do object to some Wikipedia editors telling other Wikipedia editors that they are not allowed to post a plot to a film until everyone sees the film. I don't want to wait until "everyone has seen the film", I want to wait until everyone can see the film to be able to verify its content, just as if they had to wait for the opportunity to read a book in a library. That is not the case with limited screenings not open to the public. That is not a reason to withhold the plot summary. Certainly not; that's not what I'm saying. People have seen this film. They know. People have made it, too, and they know. Yet the summary wasn't posted from the moment the script was completed. It's a film, meant to be seen by the general public in the theaters and later at home. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Editor Jack Sebastian above asked what policy it is that is supposed to discourage editors from telling other editors or the community at large what they can and can't do. Respectfully, WP:BULLY, WP:NOEDIT. The studio does not decide what goes into this film article, per WP:NOTADVERTISING, so waiting for official confirmation of the plot is not standard and we/you new and regular editors decide when it's ready to edit something controversial by WP:CONSENSUS, which is what we are doing on this talk page. Peace. 5Q5 (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Maybe its just me, but I take exception to someone who accuses me of bullying them and ordering them around and then ending their message on the pretense of 'peace.' Frankly, it's a passive-agressive, bullshit tactic that makes me want to dispense with Good Faith altogether and ignore their silly ass. Be advised, 5Q5: that nonsese will not play with me, so the next time you do it, I am simply going to point at you, laugh and ridicule you. I cannot make it any clear than that, short of a trout-slap or using hand-puppets. Furthermore, you are flat-out wrong in your interpretation of why we don't post plot summaries. I will list them numerically, since you seemingly have some difficulty following along unless someone prefaces their comments with either bold text or allcaps: 1. Plot summaries are not cited because they rely on the editors being able to agree as to a consensus view of what the plot is. 2. The film has not seen wide release, and is in fact not officially released as of yet. 3. Ergo, a large number of editors are not able to see the film to contribute to the consensus view of the plot summary. 4. Additionally, they cannot verify that the plot being offered by an extremely small number of editors, likely citing a bloggy fansite is accurate. AGF is immaterial, as the plot is the plot. It is either accurate or not. 5. Therefore, we post scant details until the film is in general release, allowing everyone to contribute to the consensus. I hope that squares the matter away for you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC) "1. Plot summaries are not cited because they rely on the editors being able to agree as to a consensus view of what the plot is." Not true. They are not cited when the film itself is being used as a primary source. That includes plot summaries that were written by just one person alone (as with the case I mentioned several times before of the plot summary for Family Viewing). "2. The film has not seen wide release...." Irrelevant. Lots of films never receive wide release or are narrowly released prior to going in wide release, but in both types of cases the film can serve as a primary source for a plot summary. "...and is in fact not officially released as of yet." That's not what the page says. It gives a release date of April 23, 2013. "3. Ergo, a large number of editors are not able to see the film to contribute to the consensus view of the plot summary." Irrelevant. If a film has only been released, for example, in just one country, then a large number of editors are not able to see it. But that is not a reason to object to a plot summary being posted. "4. Additionally, they cannot verify that the plot being offered by an extremely small number of editors, likely citing a bloggy fansite is accurate." Irrelevant. Wikipedia's policy on accessibility allows for a source to be difficult to access and for access to be limited. That a large number of editors cannot verify what a small number of editors can is neither here nor there so far as policy is concerned. "AGF is immaterial...." No, it is vital. AGF means that those who have not seen the film - for any film - have to assume that people posting a plot summary have seen it and are posting an accurate summary unless they have a specific reason to doubt that summary. This is central to AGF. So when you say "likely citing a bloggy fansite" without evidence, you have failed to assume good faith. "5. Therefore, we post scant details until the film is in general release, allowing everyone to contribute to the consensus." See my above comments. Some films never get a "general" release and lots of plot summaries on articles are written by just one person, not a team working together. This is all perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia policy. 99.192.48.126 (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.54.88 ) I did not say that we needed to wait for official confirmation of the plot, it has been suggested that we wait until the film is actually released to post the plot, for verifiability purposes. I do not appreciate being told that I or others are bullying the other side or forbidding them to do anything; I and others are not doing this any more than the other side is doing it to us. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Repeat after me, It's only a movie . . . It's only a movie . . . 5Q5 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Repeat after me: either play well with others or find somewhere else to play. Insulting editors who disagree with you is a sure recipe to get yourself marginalized as either a dick and/or a troll. I know this is coming across as harsh, but you are attacking others for disagreeing with you, and that's just uncool. Keep it congenial, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, the film itself is being used as a primary source, and when several people agree on what the primary source indicates, you have a more durable plot summary and article. In the film stub example you provide (hint: in the future, refer instead to an FA or GA exemplar instead), the plot summary is overlong, and all it would take to destabilize the article is one person disagreeing with the length, pacing or content of the plot summary; I haven't seen this late 80's Canadian romp of musical chairs, but even I can see where the summary is more complicated than is necessary. Secondly, when we refer to a film being 'in wide release', it is synonymous with 'in general release', meaning that it is available to the viewing public. It isn't about how many asses are in the seats, but rather that those seats are available for those asses. Regarding your third reply, I should point out that we've gone over this before, and your contention remains massively incorrect. A feature film (which is different from your film stub example) by definition is open to a much larger audience. Therefore, there is a wider view of opinion as what the plot was. If you consider the idea of community editing to be irrelevant, you might want to reconsider if editing within Wikipedia is your cup of tea. The plot summary requires more than a single point of view. Ask around. That's just the way it is. For example, your contention that we are allowed to describe a primary source when that source is difficult to view is just plain wrong. When a source is hard to access, you cite it. Furthermore, your reasoning is unsound, as the film doesn't meet the criteria from which you defend your crumbling arguments: the film is not hard to access. It will be out in less than a week, so what you appear to instead be talking about is a desire to "scoop" the plot and rush the matter. And your comments about AGF are immaterial: the plot was largely lifted from a single source, in some cases using the same language. AGF is important, but it isn't a set of blinders. So, my suggestion to you is that you should simply wait until a film explicitly scheduled for mass release is actually released. I understand that some of our policies and guidelines may seem difficult to follow or understand, and perhaps even see them as contradictory, but they are what they are. If you wish to see them change, here is a good place to start the process of change. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC) To the editor Jack Sebastian, sir, I am sorry if you have misinterpreted what seems to be a simple and helpful general reply to the question you asked about policy that I posted at 13:05, 5 May 2013, but I have not accused any specific editor on this page of bullying, nor have I posted any insult directed at any specific editor. I think it needs to be noted, however, and I see another editor has discovered it as well, that you are engaging in refactoring of this talk page without telling everyone. You inserted your post in this section at 19:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC) above others who had already commented, as seen at the bottom here before and then here after your insertion above 331dot (note the out-of-sequence time codes). Also, please be more civil per WP:VULGAR, WP:PERSONAL, WP:APR, WP:DISRUPT. Are there any admins monitoring this page? In 11 days when the film is released widely this plot discussion will be moot. Detailed plots have already been published on foreign language versions of the article. I say again, peace. 5Q5 (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Release dates

Please restore information about release dates other than those for the United States. Particularly relevant since many of these dates PRECEDE the date for the USA

thankyou Japanscot (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I think we should move these to the release section. In the lead, we should include the first and country of origin releases only per WP:FILMRELEASE. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tried updating the release dates to add the UK date of the 9th. I can't, however, get the UK text to line up as it's appearing on the line above in the information panel!" Can someone quickly fix my error? Sorry about that, it was best intentions.Danno81 (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, as per WP:FILMRELEASE I've removed the date from the info panel.

I do think the date of the 9th is important, however, as it is the first general release date and should be reflected somewhere http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/releaseinfo Danno81 (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be included as an "important" release date, as it is the first general release. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

But we should only list the earliest release date (whether its a world premiere) and country of origin in lead per WP:FILMRELEASE. Therefore the UK releases should be moved to an appropriate release section. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm conflicted. It's a fairly wide release on the 9th (looks like Australia and NZ get it this day too), so feel this should be noted in the infobox. If it was after the US release, then it wouldn't be an issue - but that it is having a general release on 9th outside the country of home production must be a notable enough date for the infobox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I should explain the definition of it: "The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by sources such as the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." Also, "If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article" Would this clear it up? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a judgement call as I don't think it's clear cut (I may be wrong). The first full release appears to be the 9th, but this is not the preview release which always comes sooner. To say it is released on the 15th or 17th 'feels' incorrect as many people would have seen it legitimately in the cinema on general release before that (in certain countries). I think this is an edge case as, from what I know, US films are generally released in the US before, or at least the same time, as other countries. Danno81 (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to be condescending - I know what it says, I just think there may be cause for an exception in this case. The film will have opened in most of the world by the time it reaches North America, and the infobox should somehow reflect this. I'm not suggesting we "reproduce the long lists of release dates". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you feel there is an exception Rob? Not meant to sound patronising, I am just curious. I feel the same, but cant seem to think of a justified reason other than it's my own view. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Mostly because a large part of the English-speaking world (and some of Europe) get it on this day. It's a fairly wide release. It's a strange situation because the "home" country gets it later than everyone else. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Listing just the earliest and home country dates maintains uniformity across all Wikipedia film articles. In this particular case, also, the home country United States leads the List of countries by English-speaking population. The film may be shown in English in foreign countries (apart from AU, Canada, etc.), but with subtitles I imagine in many places, so it would be hard to know how much of the English-speaking world really have "heard" it. But I think, really, it's done to provide a basic rule to keep the infobox concise, as the body of the article is where the action is supposed to be. Six months from now, will anyone really care who saw it between the premieres and the home country release? 5Q5 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to interpret WP:FILMRELEASE. Would a one-time premiere count as a "release", or would it actually be a "sneak preview"? – Smyth\^talk 18:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a definition for product release from Techopedia for software that says that activity before the actual commercial availability is part of the overall "release": The product release is part PR and marketing. A good release will create buzz and create demand of the actual product before its formal launch. A movie premiere could be thought of as a publicity release. Good question about sneak previews, as they sometimes are open to the public and are used for marketing research (feedback cards are handed out). In my previous post, I forgot to mention that I was bringing up the subject of English language because this is the English language Wikipedia. If you click on the foreign versions of Wiki for Wikipedia:FILMRELEASE you will see the infobox policies are not as detailed. 5Q5 (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of choice of release dates

Just wondering if anybody has seen a RS that discusses the choice of release dates for Into Darkness? It would be helpful if the article included an explanation as to why the film is set to be released in the US later than it is in Australia. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about Australia, but here is something about its international release in general. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The 2009 film performed well in North America but poorly elsewhere. In an attempt to maximise foreign grosses, Paramount are staggering the release dates for ST:ID. This New York Times article goes into more detail. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot sources

Here's a section to list plot sources to help the editors writing the plot. 5Q5 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• aintitcool.com/node/62238
• telegraph.co.uk/culture/star-trek/10032429/Star-Trek-into-Darkness-review.html
• (Translate:) spiegel.de/kultur/kino/star-trek-into-darkness-zweiter-enterprise-einsatz-von-j-j-abrams-a-897905.html

And of course, we cannot use them to craft a plot summary, as that would be a perfect example of Original Research, specifically, Synthesis. When the film is in general release, then - and only then - can we put out a plot summary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

External links

Could use a trailer. There is one attached to rotten tomatoes but it keeps buffering even though I have an "enhanced" Verizon connection. Can we get a trailer that is more universally available?1archie99 (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary

We cannot add the plot summary until the film is in general release. As a plot summary is the consensus view as to what happened in the film, with the general release of the film almost a week away, consensus is, at this time, impossible. Be patient grasshoppers; your time will come. And it bears reminding that the plot summary cannot be crafted from reviews. Doing so constitutes Original Research, and specifically Synthesis. We are not in a hurry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The film was released in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, parts of Europe, and Peru yesterday. It is in general release now, so there is no barrier to a detailed plot being posted if it is written by people who have seen the film and are using it as a primary source. 99.192.50.95 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not on general release in the US. It is in a lot of places. NekoFever (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You are both wrong. It has been pre-released in other countries, but the general release does not occur for another week. Apparently, you all missed all the discussion up above wherein it was pretty much determined (with detractors of course - this is Wikipedia, where no one can agree on the color of the sky) to leave the plot summary be until the film was in general release. That allows the plot summary to become stable a great deal faster - everyone gets to see the film and gets to weigh in. the final version of the plot summary grows stable without the drama. If you are unclear as to the distinctions between pre-release, selected engagements and general or wide release, please feel free to ask over at WP:FILM. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. Lets get one thing straight shall we The Film Has Been Released. I have just come in from seeing it in a public screening in a public cinema in the UK. It's not a special "pre release" in a special cinema. It is available country wide to everyone. Just because it has not been released in the US yet, does not mean it has not been "generally released". There have been PLENTY of times that a film has been released in the US first and summaries have been put up. Given that it has been generally released in at least 2 different countries, there are PLENTY of editors around the world who are capable of providing an accurate plot summary. Or are you assuming that only Americans are capable of doing such a thing? -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• The film is on general release now as can be verified by Paramount's official release schedule for the film. As you can see it includes no preview or premiere dates. The earliest date on the schedule is May 9; it's been released. There is no intepretation of the policy that validates keeping the plot summary out of the article, since anyone can go and watch this film tomorrow if they want to verify the plot. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's get one thing a bit straighter. There is no new consensus as to the addition of the plot before the general release, which doesn't occur - from the studio itself - until at least the 15th (just for IMAX; the regular release is 1-2 days later). Full stop while you all digest that for a bit. Yes, you might have scored special screening tickets. Good for you. But since the film is not in general release as of yet - and we use actual sources for that sort of thing - we cannot post the plot summary until then.

Additionally, I'd like to ask all these pro-plot summary folk where they are cribbing their version of the plot summary? Please tell me you aren't all lifitng it directly from a particular source, because that would indeed be a copyright violation. As well, please don't tell me that you are culling it from a plethora of sources, as that would be a little something we here at Wikipedia call Original Research, and to be more exact, Synthesis. Neither are allowed, so I am just dying to hear where the source of the plot summary originated.
Lastly, this posting and reverting bullshit should probably stop, as it called edit-warring. You made a bold edit by adding the summary. It's been reverted. The way it works now is that you all park your behinds here and help find a consensus that actually follows our rules here and we move forward. If you don't think you can get blocked for edit-warring, ask an administrator. In fact, ask two. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And I am sorry, Betty, but the film has NOT been released to the general public as of yet. You are pointing to a release schedule which doesn't differentiate between pre-release, special screenings and general release. We don't publish plot summaries where the general public (and editorship) cannot get the opportunity to weigh the veracity of the statements being made by a lucky few. That's just the way it works. I know it bothers you, but it is what it is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Jack, you are making a fool of yourself, so calm down. Did you not read MisterShiney's comment that the film "is available country wide to everyone" in the UK? The same is true in Australia, New Zealand, and a few other countries. Now disable your caps lock and take a nap. k? You'll feel much better after. 99.192.50.95 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous user 99, I don't recall making your apparent need to use at least three different IPs an issue, since that would be a personal attack. perhaps you'd best cowboy up and return the kindness. If you cannot discuss without attacking another user, then the door is thataway. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Jack Buddy, I respect you, but you're being a plonker! There are no special advance screenings, or special pre-release for the "Lucky few". The fact is, it is in general release in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand to name but a few. The General Public can, and are, watching the film. The only place really that it isn't reased yet is the US. Which is wherein lies the problem. You are assuming that just because it hasn't been released in the US yet it isn't generally available. Which is completely false. You were right, the consensus was to wait till general release after the Oz premiere, but the point is, it's now released and as per the previous consensus, it's time for the plot. MisterShiney ✉ 23:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, far be it for me to be a "plonker", Shiney; maybe you could point out an actual press release that states that the film is in general release now. I ask, because I've already listed a reference from Forbes that unequivocally states the release (not the US release but the general release) of the film is next week. I'm not adamant about this. Just provide a source that trumps mine. From the source (and not a loose, marketing release schedule, as per Betty Logan's link). Show me that, and if it passes muster with out policies and guidelines, then I'll back down. Not before, though. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The Paramount site clearly labels the dates as "release dates", so we take that at face value unless there is evidence to the contrary. But to just take the UK for instance, the Odeon confirms May 9 as the release date. If these were special advanced screenings then they would be advertised as "previews" or "advanced screenings", but the Odeon site clearly says "UK release date" in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See my post above to MisterShiney above, Betty. Show me an explicit press release from Paramount that the film is in general release, and we're done. Until then the Forbes citation that I linked to before was pretty much the last word on the subject. Paramount explicitly stated when the release dates were. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The BBFC confirms the UK release dates as May 9: 3D version, 2D version, IMAX version. Betty Logan (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. Do you have sth from Paramount itself? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been released in numerous markets (and yes, that's from Paramount), so it's fine to have a summary here. We had the same stance (and the same issues and the same debate) at Skyfall on this generally. As to the thread you refer to above Jack, the consensus is allowed to change as circumstances and I suggest that's what's happened here (although I'm seeing a lot of heated debate up above and not much consensus, so I'm not sure calling it a consensus is entirely right). - SchroCat (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully that puts this silly 'debate' to rest. It's on general release in many countries and has been for several days, per a Paramount website. I certainly didn't go to a special screening when I saw it on Thursday. NekoFever (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Is there a Wikipedia rule/policy that explicitly says that plot summaries must be added only after what a company dubs as a "general release", even if it is preceded by public releases in the rest half of the world? I fail to see the difference between a "general release" and "public releases in so many markets around the world", and even then, I fail to see why the latter should be ruled out as unverifiable "previews" or "advanced screenings". pictureuploader (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Jack, your comments towards IPs is borderline a Personal Attack. Please be careful. You are a constructive editor and I would hate for an admin to come a long and block you for getting heated. Your comment to Betty about an Explicit Press Release from Paramount saying it is in general release has been given already in the form of the release schedule! Which, ok perhaps it is a promotional piece of material, but then so are Press Releases! Your Forbes link is referring to the US release of the film. It says nothing about the Australian/UK release. Oh wait...YES IT DOES: "Star Trek fans overseas have already journeyed Into Darkness; the movie has been released early in over a dozen countries, including England." Their definition of early being before the American. Your asking for a reference to say the film has been released in the UK is the same as asking for a reference to say the sky is blue at this point, especially when YOUR OWN REFERENCE says it has been released! Point is, it's bad luck to be American in having to wait a few extra days. We have to do it for your films. Bad luck old chap. Now, if your concern is that you (and others) don't want it spoiled for you then don't read it and take a few days break from the article. But I think you will be very hard pressed to find an Admin who will support it's removal when it is quite clear that it has been released. Just look at the UK Cinema Chains websites. In particular Odeon and Cineworld which both say the UK release date is the 9th May. Not "Advance Screening" "Pre Screen" "UK Premiere" but UK Release. It is on General Release to the General Public in the UK and other parts of the English Speaking world. I was with you when after the Australia premiere someone up the plot, because it hadn't been generally released yet. But now that time is over. It been generally released. -- MisterShiney ✉ 15:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, said, Mister Shiney. Maybe the "release date" is just a formality for the U.S. copyright form and wouldn't hold up in a court of law if the film is already in exhibition prior to it. 5Q5 (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. And while I myself wouldn't use the term on anyone here, I have to admit, "plonker" is absolutely great! Is that an in-use term where you're from, or just a totally inspired piece of sonic neologism? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a term for "silly". Generally used in the UK. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Title hilarity

I super don't care, but I thought it'd be fun to let American editors know that the BBFC certificate for the film that appears before it in UK cinemas renders the title as "Star Trek - Into Darkness." Do with that as thou wilt. - Chris McFeely (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is HUGE!!! I suggest we spend the next month settling whether that is a hyphen or a dash between "Trek" and "Into". It could be the whole key to understanding the film!!! 99.192.77.194 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly. The title remains the same. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Kronos

The name of the Klingon home wold is written as Kronos on the titles shown on screen when they visit the planet the plot section should be edited to reflect this. 78.155.233.94 (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree. While yes, in the long term fiction, the spelling has been Qo'noS, this page is intended to be representative of what occurs within ST:ITD, not previous canon from a separate branch of the fiction. Within the context of the movie, it is referred to as Kronos. And if that's what it says in the movie...I really don't see any justification to use a spelling from a different version of things.TimeChylde (talk) 13.31,11 May 2013 (UTC)

I too agree. I have reverted the undo. -- MisterShiney ✉ 14:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It is actually called Kronos in standard English, but Qo'noS, is from recollection, the Klingonese spelling(and is used in most other more recent Star Trek series involving Klingons), and always has been. It is mostly referred to as Qo'noS in other fiction, but in English is Kronos. Kind of like how the British called it Peking, but the Chinese called it Beijing and as the former faded, the latter took over. It is suggested something similar happened to Kronos/Qo'noS after Star Trek 6's peace declaration. This being set during alternate TOS, it would still be spelt as Kronos in English. Just explaining! Colliric (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahh Interesting. Didnt know that. Then I am by no means a Trekkie. lol :) -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Kirk or Spock offers to hand over Khan?

Let's not have an edit war over this. Please resolve it here before making anymore changes back and forth between Kirk and Spock. M Carling 08:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That's my bad. Sorry guys and girls. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Heart Of Darkness needs to be mentioned here....

This film is clearly an adaptation of that novella to the Star Trek universe. It needs to be mentioned. Not only is the title similar, but the plot is clearly strongly derivitive of it to anyone who has actually read it, or seen Apocalypse Now.

Khan very clearly is this adapation's Kurtz, and the Enterprise Crew are the boat crew, while Kirk is in the role of the Marlow(Martin Sheen's character in Apocalypse Now).Colliric (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I also think this needs to be put in the "Based On" area of the summary box, as it clearly will appear there at some later stage when more secondary sources happen to notice the plot is pretty much the same as Heart of Darkness, and is actually even closer to the previous adaptation, Apocalypse Now(Especially with Kirk being issued the Assasination order), except it's in space.... Colliric (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it be put in the "Based On" area of the summery box, unless there are some reliable sources that confirm it is based upon or inspired by the novel. Charlr6 (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that backs this up then go for it. But if you can't then it has no place here. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Having exactly the same plot isn't good enough these days is it? I'm joking mate.... It likely will be added in the future as the film follows the plot pretty closely, especially of Apocalypse Now's rendition of it(except for being set in Star Trek's universe obviously), so at least it should be mentioned in the articles' header. And also the title is an exceptionally clear reference to the story. But I agree we do need to have some secondary sources for the "Based on" thing, but not for the notation that the plot and title are "similar". I will put it in and see what other editors think of it. Colliric (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

MisterShiney, you should NOT have deleted it from the header as that does NOT require sourcing except for the two plots themselves and also the titles being similar. You have overstepped the bounds there. I will respect your edit, because I don't want to start an editwar, but that was uncalled for. The Primary sources clearly have a very similar title and very similar plot and THAT should be stated in the article without need for secondary sources there. I agree we need secondary sources for the "based on", but you did not need to delete it from the header, especially because it likely will reappear there again sometime very soon. Have you not seen the film yet? the film itself is a published article, however it is also a primary source so yes it can't be used directly on the "Based on"(unless the credits indicate so), but it CAN be used to indicate there is indeed a similar plot between the two(especially with the adaptation "Apocalypse Now"), and indeed a similar title. Colliric (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Right first off, I did no such thing. I have not edited the article since first thing this morning and it was something completely unrelated thank you very much. Secondly, if it is not sourced then it has no place in the article. When making a bold claim like that there is every need for a secondary source. Everything claimed in the lead is a summary of what is in the article, which again is properly cited and sourced. Yes I have seen the film and quite frankly the only thing that is the same is they are sent to kill a guy. But that is where the resemblance ends. Not enough to warrant a mention. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok so from your point of view we should delete "Based on Hamlet by William Shakespeare" from the Lion King's summary box.... This certainly has a lot more resembelance to "Heart of Darkness" than that film had to it's far later acknowledged source(they originally denied it was loosely based on Hamlet). Even the last word of the title here is EXACTLY THE SAME. But I do agree we need to get more sources, hence I did not immediatly undo your changes, as I don't want an edit war.... that will probably be had at some stage(because this is definatly clearly either inspired by or directly based on that novel). Not surprised because Roddenberry was also inspired by it when he crafted the second Pilot episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before", which is also based on the story and this was partly derivitive of that episode. Star Trek has had a long love affair with this particular novel, and there's a character actually called Kurtz who was a Starship officer gone mad in a diffrent episode of TOS. Just giving you a little more background. Colliric (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Colliric, what you are saying is a perfect example of synthesis. WP:SYN says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You are combining information from the two plots and drawing a conclusion not stated in either. You need either a statement from one of the writers or director that HOD was used as a source or a reliable secondary source saying that it looks like STID is based on HOD in order to add anything about HOD to the page. And while I'm not familiar with the sourcing of the Hamlet/Lion King claim, it needs the same sort of sourcing to be allowed. 99.192.48.169 (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur with leaving it out for now. Adding a comparison with another published work at this point would violate Wikipedia:No original research. But even if there was a high quality source available in the future, I think it would still be debatable for inclusion. You could go through every film ever made and given an article and find similarities with other works. Westerns, for example. I think it should only be mentioned in the future if one of the filmmakers acknowledges the comparison or the estate of Joseph Conrad. 5Q5 (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And I just checked The Lion King and the page says "The filmmakers have said that the story of The Lion King was inspired by the Joseph and Moses stories from the Bible and William Shakespeare's Hamlet." The claim has a citation to the DVD. The page also quotes Roger Ebert saying that the story "owes something to Greek tragedy and certainly to Hamlet". Find something similar here and the claims can be included. 99.192.48.169 (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you here. It is however difficult to find external sources at this exceptionally early stage(so as I said I will not as yet put it back in and risk an edit war). It really took quite a long time for that to occur for Lion King(it did eventually occur in the 00's over 10 years out from the original release), which the creators only admitted was based on it in the last decade, more than 10 years after it was released. That was because Disney struggled with having one of it's famous films be considered an adaptation of another individuals work(even if it was Shakespeare), until after much critical discussion, they could no longer credibly deny it and were comfortable with admitting it. Disney publically denied it, or did not confirm it, for over a decade(while the critics were saying it immediatly). It was also obviously diffrent enough to be it's own creation(Hamlet's dad dies BEFORE the play begins, and of cause everyone dies at the end of Hamlet, unlike the happy ending of Lion King). I think the same will definatly happen to this Star Trek film. It could come out in interviews soon, say on the DVD discussing the origins of the story. Or the discussion of the film could draw it out at a far later stage(as it did for Lion King). It did happen to TOS, which as I said had several episodes also inspired by the very same novel, and publically acknowledged to be so, including the second Pilot episode(the one with Gary Mitchell as the villian). So I do agree with you, but you have to understand, it likely will be difficult to find at this early stage, until the critics analyze the film, and until the film's "impact" is later assessed further down the line(as occured to Lion King). Colliric (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If any prominent reviewers say that they think the film is based on HOD, then that can go in the "reception" section right now as a review quote, just like for TLK. If it takes 10 years for the producers of STID to say that HOD was a source, then it will take 10 years before the Wikipedia page can report it as an actual source. That's just how Wikipedia works. But putting it on the page now is like reporting a rumour. It might be true and the proof that it is true might be 10 years away, but until there is proof Wikipedia will not report it. 99.192.48.169 (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree... on a side note here's some discussion about it(this is all pre-release stuff) on various blogs and sites(no credible sources but for anyone wanting to see where I'm coming from you can have a quick read below):

http://voices.yahoo.com/star-trek-into-darkness-does-title-mean-11751180.html http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2012/09/star-trek-2-finally-gets-an-official-title-star-trek-into-darkness/ http://io9.com/5941595/the-new-star-trek-movie-has-a-title-but-what-does-it-mean

That goes to show some people immediatly "got it" and picked up the fact it could be an adaptation from the title and general consensus on what the plot was going to be. So confirmation might not be that far off after all! Colliric (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Again. I did not remove the content. I think you will find that was User:Charlr6 thank you. So I think you owe me an apology! Oh and yes, if The Lion King put in that it was based on Hamlet without a source then, yes I would remove it because without a source, making such a claim would be irresponsible and Original Research. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Mister Shiney and the anonymous, multi-IP-using contributor: we cannot make any comparisons until a reliable, citable reference says so. It's one of the harder things newer editors have to contend with. the obvious cannot be stated in the article until someone notable states it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Look who's back! Can we take it that you are satisfied that the film has been released? See what a good night's sleep can do for you! 99.192.48.169 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Careful Annon, being online, that could be taken the wrong way. MisterShiney ✉ 18:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

MrShiney is offering you good advice, anonymous user; you might want to take it or be dismissed as just another douche-canoe. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, things can be taken the wrong way. Which does not mean they were meant that way. In fact, one would have to not have meant it the way it was taken for it to be the "wrong" way, right? 99.192.48.169 (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I see we agree Jack Sebastian! It certainly is obvious! Also I apologize MisterShiney, yes it was the other guy, I can see that now. Colliric (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Re-read my post, Colliric; that is not what I said at all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It was a joke, guess that doesn't come out when you read it as text on a screen! I was referring to your sentence "the obvious cannot be stated in the article until someone notable states it." I agree with the rest of your comment, but as I said, it's pretty difficult to find sources that specifically point out such "Uncredited" things until after a significant period of time and the work's artistic impact is academically assessed(sometimes only weeks, sometimes up to a decade or more). Most "brand new" reviews focus on the overall quality of the film(obviously as these reviews are aiming to inform the potential audience of the film's value as entertainment), rather than how it relates artistically to other works. Usually the more academic, or fan-based reviews(especially if written for a published work, such as an official Book on the artistic merits of the film series, etc), will focus on this, ones that usually appear later and are not nessecerily concerned with "informing the potential audience" but rather on figuring out how the film relates to other science fiction, other films or books, and what inspired it's story or themes. Colliric (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the content, and said that it should have a source on the edit comment by someone confirming it was based on Heart of Darkness, which you would have seen if you went onto edit history on the page. And the source should come from someone involved in production of the film. For example, someone writing a movie review on it, like IGN or some other big site that would review movies and if they said it was based upon it, its a good source, but not an official source confirmed by someone involved in the movie, or the studio themselves. Charlr6 (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing currently in the article's Title section or elsewhere that explains why they went with "Into Darkness." I would suggest an enterprising editor look into adding a sourced line for that. I can tell you that the studio head would have had final approval of any title. It might not have even originated with Abrams. 5Q5 (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Or we might be overthinking it completely. Good idea about doing some research before considering adding speculation. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the Wrath of Khan reference because . . .

(Full original topic title: "I have deleted the Wrath of Khan reference because it is a spoiler of that film, and while it is the case, doesn't need to be mentioned in the plot summary.")

The reference to Wrath is a spoiler for anyone who sees this page, and has not watched Wrath of Khan, but, after watching this film or being interested in this film, wants to. So it's best not to put it here. It is too much information for a plot summary anyway. Also the two villians are not on equal pegging unlike those two descriptions suggested. Khan is revealed to be the lead villian mid-way into the film and Marcus while a villian of the first half or so, is in the end a secondary villian, so that should be the case in the article's description of the roles. Colliric (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)for removal

While spoiler is not a valid argument for removal, whatever is said about the Star Trek 2 parallels (which were frickin awesome) should have a source that clearly points them out, and not based on WP:OR. I don´t know if that was the case here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: The editor who began this discussion topic appears to have never made the indicated deletion, which would have been quickly reverted anyway. Also, I shortened the original title of this topic because it was taking up too much space in the Edit Summary. 5Q5 (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

yes I did, the statment "In an inversion of the ending to Star Trek 2: The Wrath Of Khan" came before the part where it says "Kirk sacrifices himself". So I immediatly deleted it, because it is an unnessecery spoiler of Wrath, is also clearly in violation what the other user noted about WP:OR, and is clearly not important to the actual plot of this film. The Summary is much better without it. Colliric (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That´s reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I saw that edit, which I also agree with, but the other Kahn references were left intact, so I thought you meant you were removing the reference to Kahn in the plot in its entirety. This issue appears to be resolved, then. 5Q5 (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Cumberbatch's Credit appears to be this:

He is apparently credited as Khan Noonian Singh(as Spock Prime also states) in the final credits roll. So that should be his only listed name. It is obvious he is playing that character anyway. If the other name is reinstated it should be made clear "John Harrison" is in fact only an alias. Colliric (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The parenthetical mention of Harrison as an alias looks good in the article. Parts are sometime dual roles, like twins, played by the same actor, so as long as we make sure it's one part and matches the credit, it should be okay. 5Q5 (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect I am afraid. He is only credited as simply Khan. For informational/encyclopaedic purposes we should keep it as it is, about him being John Harrison and then revealed to be Khan. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Khan's name

I don't wish to get involved in an edit war, but should we list Khan's full name or not in the cast section? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My take is this: If his full name is in the end credits, then it should be full in the article. I haven't seen the movie yet here in the US. If it's just Kahn in the credits, then his full name could be added in the article cast list in parentheses, but leave the wiki link at Kahn: "Kahn (Khan Noonien Singh)." A side note, it appears full in the Space Seed episode article as "Ricardo Montalban - Khan Noonien Singh", though I don't know what the episode end credits actually said. Like you, I was wondering the same thing. 5Q5 (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

He is credited "as Khan" in Space Seed, however it was common to shorten character names in the television credits of the time and his name was(from recollection), ironically, mentioned by Spock in his description of the Eugenics wars. William Shatner isn't even credited in Season 1's titles as his character and of the main cast, Leonard Nimoy is the only one who is credited as "Mr Spock" due probably to his characters' popularity, while Shatner was already a major tv star so it just says "Starring William Shatner" rather than "Starring William Shatner as Captain Kirk"! Colliric (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The best way to avoid an edit war is if you find yourself edited the first time, do not assume that hte other person did so by accident. Bring yourself here and talk about it, sort the problem out and prevent any escalation of reverting, right?

I don't see any problem with citing simply Khan, as that is what - according to one of you who has seen it - he is credited as. If you have a source from a reviewer naming him in his entirety, then we can name him, citing it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I just saw it and he was only credited as Khan. I did take a cheeky picture of the closing credits if you would like me to upload it somewhere...? -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Good one, had me on the floor laughing, recording inside a movie theater. I know you must be kidding. Notice any pattern of dots on the picture?. Lol. 5Q5 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record I didnt record/bootleg the film. I was watching it for the second time and knowing that there was a dispute going on over if Khan was the full named version or just Abram's version of him in his new universe I decided to see who he was credited as and take a picture. I solemnly declare that I did not and have not and will never take a video recording of this or any other movie. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. Spock Prime clearly states Khan full name as Khan Noonien Singh when he talks with Spock. Are we still going with just "Khan"? jhsounds (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Spoiling

On behalf of all Americans, Canadians, Japanese and other countries who have yet to see it, thank you for spoiling the fucking movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.213.49 (talk • contribs) 15:14, May 15, 2013‎

Per WP:SPOILER, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality." "Completeness" is the key here. We cannot cover up encyclopedic information to just manage moviegoers' enjoyment of a film. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not fair. A majority of the world haven't seen it yet. America, Canada, Japan. It's annoying to come here to learn info on the film and get spoiled because England already saw it. Not fair and totally stupid. 71.7.213.49 (talk • contribs) 20:23, May 15, 2013‎

Then quite simply DONT READ THE PAGE!!! -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that it can be frustrating, but at what point can we really start showing spoilers? There is no real marker for when it is acceptable to do that. This is an encyclopedic article; it is going to share all useful information about a film. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I see an administrator has blocked the IP address 71.7.213.49 for 31 hours due to harassment and vandalism in the article. With regard to spoilers, there are also people who appreciate them and after reading the plot, then make the decision to go see the movie. Knowing the plot in advance doesn't seem to hurt adaptation films. 5Q5 (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Change title to include hyphen

Hi, the official name of this film includes a hyphen as can be seen here [3]. Please can the title be changed to include this. Thanks, 2001:630:12:10C0:1C2A:3752:7491:BC02 (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not an official site of the film. Further, the poster on that site does not have a hyphen, and the makers of the film specifically stated they made a choice to not have a colon in the title; the title is "Star Trek Into Darkness". 331dot (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been multiple discussions on this, and nearly all other sources have the title without a hyphen or colon. (Although seeing the BBFC title card with a hyphen at the cinema last night did make me smile - I knew we'd have to have another debate!) --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, per WP:COMMONNAME, we use for the article title the name most commonly seen in reliable sources. In this case, Star Trek Into Darkness is by far the most common name. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Is that you, Mr. Munroe? :) --JohnDBuell (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot ending needs work

As I write ths, the last two lines in the plot only mention that Kirk is connected with the Enterprise as it takes off on a five-year mission: In the aftermath, Kirk is revived and returns to duty as captain of the Enterprise. Khan is sealed into his cryogenic pod and stored away with his colleagues. As the film ends, a restored Enterprise is re-christened and departs for a five-year mission of exploration. Where's Spock, Scotty, McCoy, Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov? Where are the pods stored? I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't fix these omissions. 5Q5 (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, as I write this, there is no mention at all in the article's plot of the characters Sulu and Chekov. I assume the actors playing those roles have star billing and deserve some kind of mention. 5Q5 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Khan Noonien Singh Whitewashed - Articles You May Wish to Include.

Shame that Gene's character that was based on a chap he met in the 2nd World War called Kim Noonien Singh wasn't honoured in the new film. Interesting article [4] here on this. SH 16:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I was sleeping one night, or in pre-sleep, and I began pondering this same issue: "I bet the filmmakers are going to get heat for casting a white man as Kahn," since Ricardo Montalbán was a Mexican of Spanish parents and they darkened him with makeup apparently to look Asian or whatever. The filmmakers tried to get Oscar-winning Puerto Rican actor Benicio del Toro, but he turned them down. I'm sure there was discussion at some point of casting a Bollywood actor or whomever, who unfortunately would not have been as well known, but then, you know what, they still couldn't win, as they would have been accused of portraying a dark-skinned actor, maybe a Muslim in real life, as the villain. Either way, they would lose. So, the safest thing to have done would have gone with the Gary Mitchell storyline. 5Q5 (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Either way what a shame. Gene Roddenberry friend Kim Noonien Singh on whom this charachter was based and was his 2nd World War chum should have least been honored. Muslims play Sikhs all the time in Bollywood, so I don't think thats an issue here. Thanks SH 10:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If you mean maybe they could have included a mention in the end credits, if they did that, and for the earlier Space Seed episode, they could have been sued for not getting life story rights and possibly defamation since Kahn is portrayed as a killer. 5Q5 (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No that's not what I'm sying. They should have at least honored Rodenberry and the person who he based the charachter on his 2nd World War chum he met in the Pacific, Kim Noonien Singh. In other words stick with the original script. The "Whiteyverse" version that Abrahams has created is miles from the Multi racial/specy-verse that Rodennberry created. Just annoys me. Ricardo captured the North-West Indian spirit perfectly, that need for revenge and fighting that Alexander the Great came up against, that made these guys such perfect warriors. Ideal for an "Augment" I would say. Rather than some English toff. :) SH 17:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the other talk page, the article is biased as it is from an Islamic group looking to "stir the pot". The fact is that Khan was always portrayed as a half-blooded indian-british villian in the extended universe. In the original episode Khan was played by Ricardo Montalban, who is a Mexican actor, and has far lighter skin than most indians. They explained this in the extended universe by surmising that Khan is a half-blood, being half-indian and half-british(his family being of Colonial wealth, as if from the era when Britain ruled India). The Abrams film has made simply made this formal canon and cast a british actor to portray Khan as a semi-colonialist with British and Indian ancestry(pretty much the same as in the original show given it was Montalban, and he looks like a half-caste). As the events of the Eugenics Wars occured before the "time-line split", Khan's origin is exactly the same. Khan also marries easily a white non-religious non-islamic woman in the original episode Space Seed, but I guess this islamic group conviently forgot that peice of information, that he was never portrayed as an actual islamic believer, despite being a Sheik. He is never actually shown wearing a turban. Makes even more sense when you realise the character is based on Kurtz from Heart Of Darkness(and Apocalypse Now), a British Colonialist who has taken on the religious beliefs and customs of the 'savage' people he is now living as God amoungst.Colliric (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

no offence but you have no idea what you are talking about. North-West Indians are light brown skinned. They have originated from groups like Jat, Scythians from the Black Sea area. They tend to be tall. An extreme variation is the wrestler The Great Khali. There is no stirring by Muslims (please stop confusing Muslims with Sikhs). He is not a Sheik but a SIKH. Motalban looks exactly like North-West Indians or Punjabi's. It's this sort of ignorance that has led to the Whitewashing of the Star Trek Universe. SH 14:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Until we have some hefty references connecting this to Heart of Darkness, could you perhaps stop referring to said connection as if it were a)obvious and b) cfb? It isn't any more clear than those who compare Kirk Spock and McCoy to the Holy Trinity. It's speculative opinion, and it makes for bad concersations about how to improve the article. Let's stay on point, shall we? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by CFB, but here in Canada it is short for Canadian Forces base, as in CFB Halifax. Speaking of Canada, did you happen to read the review of STID in the Toronto Star? Here's an excerpt:

[Cumberbatch is] the dark heart of Into Darkness, and that symbolic connection with Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is duly noted. His presence is felt amongst the ping-ponging cast members even when he’s not onscreen, like Conrad’s Mr. Kurtz (or Francis Ford Coppola’s Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now).

Interresting, no? The title of the article is "Star Trek beams into the heart of Darkness" and you can read the whole thing here: [5] 99.192.52.19 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I made my extended reply to Colliric's similar comments to the above over at Talk:Khan Noonien Singh, but for whatever it is worth I'll note again here that the article was written by a Sikh and on a website devoted to "the Sikh American experience." No Muslims were involved in the stirring of this pot. If were going to be jingoistic about the issue, we might as well get the enemy straight. 99.192.52.19 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to rearrange indents, but I'd appreciate if you would avoid doing that to my posts; I put them where I do for a reason, and you don't need to second-guess their placement. That said, I looked at the source you thoughtfully provided in regards to the Heart of Darkness comment. The bit you presented in bold is in fact the only mention of the matter connecting STID into Conrad's work. Even though it is a reliable source, you might want to consider expanding your search for further sources, so as to prevent the appearance of lending undue weight to what appears to be at this point a minority opinion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read my comment carefully, you will see that nowhere do I advocate adding information about Heart of Darkness or Apocalypse Now to the article. I was merely pointing out that Colliric isn't the only one to see a connection, and at least one of those others is a reliable source. Colliric should feel free to continue talking about the connection and not be bullied into stopping. He's far from the only one to have noticed it. Oh, and for the record, I did not change any of the indents on your comments. You put it with no indents and I left it with no indents. 99.192.52.19 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is being bullied, my multi-IP-swapping little friend. We just don't treat the Wikipedia article discussion pages like your local fan forum. If it improves the article then we can talk about it. If it cannot be cited, then it is a waste of our time to talk about it here. Maybe you should spend a little less time looking for conspiracies and alienating those who could actually help you become a better editor. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"No one is being bullied, my multi-IP-swapping little friend." Really? So if I called you "fake-name using editor who calls himself 'Jack'" that would also not be bullying? It sounds to me like both are violations of Wikipedia:Civility. "If it improves the article then we can talk about it." Colliric believes it does this. Your telling him to stop talking about it does not. "If it cannot be cited...." I provided the citation and you agreed that it was a reliable source. Colliric's mentioning of the matter lead to one source being provided, and perhaps there will be more. Your trying to stop discussion of the matter does not help the article. "Maybe you should spend a little less time looking for conspiracies...." Are you SURE you are not bullying people? Because that sounds kinda bitchy. "alienating those who could actually help you become a better editor." You? Thanks for the offer (and I know it must be sincere since you don't bully people), but I'll manage fine without the help. 99.192.50.54 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.52.19)

The difference here with name use is that I clearly state on my user page that my name is not Jack Sebastian. I end up being responsible for my edits because I have an account which can be tracked. You think that by simply switching to another IP that no one can track your movements, and furthermore that no one is aware that you are probably making extensive use of IPs because you may very well be a formerly indef-blocked user. Sorry, but you used up your good faith the last time you took a cheap shot at me. So caling you for what I see is not bullying sport but I get it: you think the best defense is a good offense. So, the best way to deal with you is just to quietly watch and wait until you self-destruct. This will be my last response to you about your behavior outside of an admin board.

The article talk page is for discussion about how to improve the article, not our personal conclusions. Yes, one reviewer did say something comparing STID with Conrad's Heart of Darkness: two sentences. In all the reviews of the film out to date, there are two vague sentences about how it compares to Conrad's work. To me, that says undue weight being given to the matter. Were Collric were to find more, then (and only then) could we discuss it in more depth. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a fan forum for you to chat about fringe topics or Sherlock about why the blue lens flare was here or there or whatever. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have edited your change as your third and fourth articles are in violation of WP:NEWSBLOG and also potentially biased. But your first two were reliable, so we can use those two. I have fully responded to you on the Khan talkpage.Colliric (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

[This http://americanturban.com/] is not a newsblog my friend. It's a legitimate website. Google it. You will see it being quoted in many news articles in America. Thanks SH 16:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be legitimate as well, but you should probably confirm it as a reliable source over at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. That way, no one can say boo about it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear, but in fact the Blog was the second reference, not the "Americanturban" one, I should have mentioned it specifically, sorry. The American Turban reference is potentially to a biased source, I agree that needs to be reviewed and looked at. But the other source he used cannot be valid, as it clearly violates WP:NEWSBLOG. Colliric (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

How about Sikhnet. A website run by white American Sikhs? Thanks SH 16:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Not being funny, rude, racist or whatever you all may be thinking. But is it suitable to be providing references to potentially biased reviews? Unless it has appeared in the mainstream news should it be included? As far as I can see these sources are just glorified blogs. Their suitability should most definitely be checked with the Reliable Sources noticeboard before being included. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:Reliable is a fair point but I would ask that you give the references I have used the same fair treatment as other references here. My experience of editing Trekker related articles is that the seems to be a WP:Undue weight given to some references (usually fellow known Trekkers), to over other editors like me. My experince is that if some Trekkers don't like some points they verge on WP:Censorship and WP:Game the system to remove references. I always try and go for WP:Verifiable references. As far as I can see they are not "glorified" blogs but bona fide websites. Thanks SH 18:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a legitimate issue for mention in the article (which it has been as I write this), subject to proper sourcing. I'm just perplexed, however, by the apparent tolerance on the part of white social commentators that there were not similar mentions of the flip side of "blackwashing" or "brownwashing" of brown-skinned actors playing white-skinned characters in Wild Wild West, Cinderella (1997 film), and probably others. Blacula doesn't count. So, yes, include, but both sides carry guilty paint brushes. 5Q5 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So as to not violate Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM, I will reply to you on your talk page. I suggest others who might want to comment on the matter join us there rather than doing it here. 99.192.90.12 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page, but I am not encouraging a major discussion there or here by others. Let's move on. 5Q5 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Vengeance of Khan - redux

I wonder who decided to make the in-joke that the new ship be called the Vengeance, which was very nearly the title of Star Trek II (and if Lucas hadn't flip-flopped on Revenge of the Jedi until the last moment, it very likely would have been). I doubt the joke deserves mention in the article, but it's good for a groan out of the long-time fans, myself included. :) --JohnDBuell (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh and props to the same writers for grabbing the whole Section 31 device out of DS9. :) Yes, I know even talk pages aren't supposed to be a fansite, but it's interesting how they're still reflecting the parallel universe off of the original continuity. --JohnDBuell (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There are in-jokes because the long-range plan is to revert back to the original timeline when Pine starts to lose his hair like his dad did. They can't keep aging the actors every 4-5 years for each sequel; sooner or later, they will be visiting the Guardian of Forever. 5Q5 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

All that is needed for any of these little things is a solid reference somewhere. Without it, this is forum-talk. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Blood is cellular, radiation is (sub) atomic

How in Heaven's name could Khan's blood repair head-to-toe radiation damage? Kirk was atomic waste. There's suspending disbelief and then there's talking to the audience like we're idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.237.3 (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If it works for Jack Harkness, why can't it work for Khan and Kirk? :) --JohnDBuell (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

They did it because at the end of The Wrath of Kahn Spock was regenerated, so they had to come up with something similar to bring Kirk back in this rebooted timeline. But you're right, and it's likely one of the reasons some critics have called the film "silly" and "dumb." Notice any sharks being jumped? 5Q5 (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not that silly. The suggestion was that Khan's blood had been genetically altered so that it could regenerate dead cells. Not repaired living ones from radiation damage, but regenerated the dead ones from, well, death. That's why the plot summary needs to clearly state he actually DIED in the chamber. Not that he "was hit with fatal radiation poisoning and somehow recovered as his cells were repaired". He actually DIED, his CELLS DIED, and the implication given is that Khan's blood could actually regenerate dead tissue, possibly due to the altered white blood cells contained within. This has actually been shown in recent scientific experiments to be possible so it's no wonder they used it in the latest Star Trek film. Scientists recently brought a rat's heart back to life in an experiment, after they had killed it and left it for a while. Here is the article: http://www.thestar.com/business/tech_news/2008/01/14/scientists_revive_dead_heart.html Colliric (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we are reading far too much into this. Besides let us try and remember that Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why the plot summary must indicate it was indeed mentioned by McCoy that he suffered brain death(and it was recent enough that if revived, he could retain his memory, and not have brain damage), which of cause is the modern medical measurement for Death. He was DEAD. But it had occured recently enough that McCoy could perform an extrodinary medical proceedure(kind of in defiance of Spocks' insistance that Miracles don't exist!) and return him to life.Colliric (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Cumberbatch as Kahn available

Someone uploaded a photo from the movie May 15 2013 and it is now in the Khan Noonien Singh article as I write this in case anyone wants to attempt a placement in this article. 5Q5 (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Although I would expect that it will be replaced once a whole cast picture becomes available. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Kirks' Death.

It appears this is becoming an issue on this page, But it is clearly mentioned by McCoy that Kirk has actually suffered Brain Death and it has occured fairly recently. Bones therefore orders Kirk to be cryogenically frozen so that his memory cells are not damaged(not to continue to preserve his life, he has already DIED) to preserve his identity, and so that when he is revived to life, his memory will remain intact. Bones realization, not spoken but implied, is that the Tribble was infact dead(it was not replicating as tribbles should, and was not making any noise), and the injection of Khan's blood somehow repaired the tribble and restored life to it.

Kirk therefore technically, according to modern measurments(which is taken from brain activity), DIES, and is later revived using Khan's unique blood cells. Spock earlier says he doesn't believe in miracles, but is confronted with one presented directly to him from Dr McCoy, in the middle of his revenge fuelled fight with Khan. This needs to be reflected in the article's plot summary for it to be accurate. Colliric (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that makes these connections, Collric? We cannot Sherlock them out for ourselves. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The movie and it's dialog itself(which is a fine reference for a plot summary).... It's a moot point anyway because as the summary is at this moment it is now accurate(edited by another user) as it currently explicitly states he died and was subsiquently "reanimated" by McCoy. Obviously Spock not believing in miracles, but being confronted by one, is part of the emotional themes/impact of the climax, and doesn't need to appear in the summary. As of cause is also McCoys' revelation that the Tribble was dead. Colliric (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Colliric is right, the movie and its dialog itself. I remember clearly what Colliric said is what happens and how it is said in the film. Charlr6 (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It seemed obvious to me that the Tribble was dead, and McCoy specifically says that he was testing the effects of Khan's platelets on necrotic (i.e. dead) tissue. jhsounds (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Khan's Reveal

Shouldn't we keep the spoilers to the movie just in the plot summary? Listing Cumberbatch as Khan in the casting section spoils the reveal for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.215.36 (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that's his character. If people don't want to see spoilers, they shouldn't read Wikipedia film pages. Colliric (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia stopped using spoilers a few years ago. See WP:SPOILER. Nightscream (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)