Talk:Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Wikipedia Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Star Trek Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

A fact from Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 November 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Wikipedia editors wrote over 40,000 words arguing over a single letter?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2013 Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Wikipedia editors wrote over 40,000 words arguing over a single letter? Source: https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/wikipedia-star-trek-into-darkness-capitalization/
- ALT0a: ... that Wikipedia editors wrote over 40,000 words arguing over an 'i'?
- ALT1: ... that Wikipedia editors wrote over 40,000 words arguing whether the "I" in Star Trek Into Darkness should be capitalized?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nicolas Mahler
Comment: I prefer ALT0 or ALT0a—I'm going to improve the article in a little bit but it shouldn't affect the review too much.

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 00:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - ?
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is a pretty lulzy article. I am a little concerned that, of five sources, one of them is a Wikipedia article -- it's clearly WP:ABOUTSELF, but I'm not sure what current consensus is about this specific sort of navel-gazing. I would appreciate if someone else could give some guidance here. jp×g 01:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Thanks for the speedy review! I found this from WP:CIRCULAR: An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Does that answer your question? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'll work. Would it not be more proper to link to a specific revision, though? jp×g 02:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Agreed—I swapped out the link. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Passing. jp×g 03:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this nomination is on hold pending an ongoing AfD nomination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
following a keep vote, we are good to go! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting the main hook to Prep 5. The consensus of the deletion discussion was to keep this article. There is no discussion on the talk page about any possible merge, so it meets the criteria to be featured on DYK. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links

As this seems likely to run and run, we should maintain a list of relevant links. So far, there's

Title change?

Do we need the "2013" in the title? There are no other Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversies that I know of, so do we need the year in the title to distinguish this one? I would suggest we rename this simply Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy... — Hunter Kahn 23:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could always spell out 2013 as "two thousand and thirteen" theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that there is no need for the date in the title of the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

moved! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

there's seriously an article about this nonsense? 166.181.82.125 (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It draws more people to the site. Fun81 (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Should the “~*~StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs~*~” redirect be recreated now that it somehow has a relevant article? DogsRNice (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this—"StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs" exists, after all. —Will ^(B) 03:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done! —Will ^(B) 17:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek lnto Darkness (that's a lower case L) should also be created, as it is also referenced in the same place. Unfortunately its indefinitely blocked from recreation. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 15:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly named, what controversy?

This page title and page text are so incorrectly worded that some are still trying to do an end-around the recent AfD Keep decision and "merge" it to List of Wikipedia controversies, a page it doesn't come close to fitting. What is the controversy? There was none that I can tell. There was a common styling discussion which then grew quite large and outside-media notable. Nothing controversial, Wikipedia styling discussions are not rare nor controversial. All uses of the word 'controversy' on the page should actually be removed and reworded for accuracy ("change my mind"). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, perhaps “debate” would be better. —Will ^(B) 21:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead of controversy, it could be named a conspiracy? Because really, why would there be a controversy. Afterall, the name of the movie is "Star Trek Into Darkness". Flight Risk (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comma in lede

@Randy Kyrn I don't think "From December 11, 2012, until the end of January 2013," should have a comma after 2012, because it would read "From..., until...,". My intuition says that "From... until...," (or really, "From... to...") would be idiomatic instead.

Admittedly, I'm having trouble finding concrete sources one way or the other. Would it be okay to change it to "From December 11, 2012 to the end of January 2013,"? BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Proposal

I propose to change the page's name to "Star Trek 𐊈nto Darkness", or any other name with a confusing obscure character. Language Boi (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]