Jump to content

Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thorncrag (talk | contribs) at 14:45, 26 September 2012 (→Is it Star Trek Into Darkness or Star Trek into Darkness?: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 31, 2009Articles for deletionRedirected
November 24, 2011Articles for deletionKept

Title

I am aware it is not called Star Trek 2, but it sounds more tasteful than Untitled Star Trek Sequel, doesn't it? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:36 18 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia is in the business of accuracy, not taste. 71.212.61.164 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected

I have protected this page against page moves until the dispute over the appropriate title is settled. I suggest that a discussion take place to establish a consensus as to the appropriate title for this article. WJBscribe (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - see below. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for protecting this page against bogus move attempts, sir. Should help keep the sock admins and their puppets at bay for a while or two while Abrams, Orci et al finally get off their butts and give the film a damn name! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.222.218 (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to Untitled Star Trek sequel per the end of this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek 2 (2013 film) → Star Trek sequel film project – Relisted. Discussion still on going. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC) The film is yet untitled and has yet to go into production. Per WP:FILMPROJECT would suggest this as a suitable name as to guess any numerical system would be against WP:CRYSTAL and there are no sources confirming a name. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I already had this redirected to Star Trek XII. Your proposed title is silly, overlong and not what someone wanting to find the article would type in. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:16 1 December 2011 (UTC)
But as Star Trek XII is an unsourced title (and gets no hits in a google news search), it is effectively WP:Original research, so we cant have that! Any other suggestions? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a minor though but, how about Star Trek 2013 Film Project?--Bumblezellio (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Star Trek XII (film project) or Star Trek 2 (film project). Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:30 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Both of these imply that the film has a name. It does not. And Star Trek XII (film project) would have no need for a disambiguator anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about we merge the page into the Star Trek (2009) under a new section?--Bumblezellio (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 100% that this is where the information should be! However, we can't do that after the recent deletion discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't warrant redirction, but it seems you can't notice that because you're upset no one agreed with you. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 17:44 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Please stop trying to make this personal. I am not upset(!) I haven't changed my opinion, I still believe this article shouldn't exist, but I'll go with consensus! Now maybe we should get back to the point of where to house it... --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very Tenative Support. The title is rather a mouthful, and, as Rusted AutoParts stated, it isn't easy to research. However, the current title is unacceptable, as it is not the second movie in the series. I still think, as I stated in the AfD, that Star Trek (2013 film) is a good title. But, if push comes to shove, I'd rather have the somewhat awkward title proposed by Rob Sinden than the inaccurate title currently on the article. Joefridayquaker (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should not be making up titles for films.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)--70.24.215.154 (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Star Trek (2013 film) is really the only thing that makes sense to me and most closely conforms to how we title future films. We know that "Star Trek" will be in the title and that it will probably not contain a numerical.    Thorncrag  18:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was Star Trek 12 (we had it at Star Trek XII), but i guess that title is WP:OR, even though the series is known for using Roman numerals. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:47 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The IP states that they think that "Star Trek 12" would be a "descriptive" title, thus avoiding the WP:OR of using Roman numerals. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to use a descriptive title I think something like 12th Star Trek film would be better since that would not imply that 12 is part of the tile.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The 12th Star Trek Film" would be an appropriate title. I agree on that title.--Bumblezellio (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Just merge it back into Star Trek (film) and create the article when filming begins. There's not enough information to warrant a premature article like there was with The Avengers (2012 film) or The Dark Knight Rises. --Boycool (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion consensus was keep. Redirection not an option. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:54 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Not only no, but HELL NO!!! That title is too long and descriptive and most people are calling it Star Trek 2. Its the current Common Name. Why change it? If and when a new name is chosen and released then of course a page move would be in order.Just not now.--JOJ Hutton 23:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Star Trek sequel? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could work! --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Boycool (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does Star Trek (2010s Film) sounds suitable?--Bumblezellio (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. If you're going to go down that route, then you may as well go Star Trek (2013 film). Other than my original suggestion, I think I'm favouring Untitled Star Trek sequel. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I know my ideas can be "lame", but Rusted AutoParts stated that Untitled Star Trek sequel was not as tasteful as Star Trek 2 at the first line of the Title section.--Bumblezellio (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But as this film has yet to have title, and film makers have categorically stated that it will not have a numerical, how do you propose we should name the article? All suggestions welcome ;) --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, Star Trek (2013 film), in this case, is most closely fitting with how we typically title future films.    Thorncrag  15:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So.... Do we all agree on Star Trek (2013 film)?--Bumblezellio (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and please, to someone who knows how to strike a previous statement, strike mine. I support the retitle to Star Trek (2013 film). Buffalutheran (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there seems to be equal support for "Untitled Star Trek sequel" --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it to a vote:--Boycool (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Boycool (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any version of “Star Trek (______)” is not acceptable, it claims “Star Trek” is the name of the film, which is almost certainly not going to be the case. Untitled Star Trek sequel does not incorrectly imply a name for this as-yet-untitled film, it seems the best available option. MTC (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know I'm flip-flopping like presidential candidates, but this is probably the best option. In addition, the Memory Alpha article on the subject names the film in this manner. This is the best choice, for the time being. Buffalutheran (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Vote from me--Bumblezellio (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that this is the best route to go down to decide this per WP:VOTE. But if it does boil down to these two choices, I'd favour Untitled Star Trek sequel. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment

Dispute moved to user talk page.

This has resulted in a childish bickering amongst everyone. What was once a nicely made article has been destroyed by the dictatorship of one certain editor who is way too "by the book". It's a real shame. Why does it bother you, Robsinden, that each article I make ticks you off (do not deny it)? Why does it get under your skin to the point that rather than discuss on the talk page, you childishly nominate it for deletion because you didn't get your way. This name change conversation has my anger welling up. That's why i feel i need to write a few essaies for myself and others to consider. Your way or the highway is not helping. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:59 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not the articles you make that are the issue here, it is the continuing disregard of established guidelines, and the premature creation of articles by certain editors (and you are not alone) as if there is some kind of prize for being first. The guidelines have been drawn up for a reason, and I'm sorry if my interpretation of them differs from yours. Trying to get the guidelines changed in order to allow you to create premature articles is not helpful. Note that in the name change conversation above, two other editors have suggested that the information is better placed on the Star Trek (2009 film) article, so I am not alone in this interpretation. If this name change conversation has your "anger welling up", you may want to remember that the only reason we're having it is because the film is not far enough along the production process to have a name yet. You may also want to consider a Wikibreak if things are getting to you.
I have asked you before not to make this personal. Using words like "childish" and "dictatorship" is assuming bad faith and I do consider it a personal attack. Please do not persist, or I will take it further.
May I also suggest brushing up on the guidelines, and only creating articles when notability has clearly been met, or developing articles on articles about the subject matter, then seeking consensus as to whether a breakout article is justified (as per suggestion at WP:FILMPROJECT). This way you won't find yourself in the situation where your articles are nominated for deletion quite so often. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried, but after 4 seperate occasions in which you attempted to exterminate articles i created because i rejected your redirection. I ask you to bring the situation to the articles talk page, but nope, AFD is the only solution. And then you have the audacity to basically rub it in my face (yes, you didn't nom that, but it's relevant). It to me seems that you enjoy doing so. Sorry if it seems like a personal attack, but god, it infuriates me and i've had enough. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:59 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hang on just a minute. Are you saying that because an editor nominated for deletion a prematurely created article that is not notable and clearly goes against guidelines, and I happened to agree with them, this is some kind of personal vendetta against you? Wow! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem whatsoever. I do if it's nominated by the same person. It makes me feel that you have my contributions on watch and that makes me feel untrusted. If your nomination was based on a legit concern and not because i reverted your redirection, i'd have no problem. Just start from the talk page and voice Why you feel it's premature. Oh, and to put an end to this "premature" thing. Premature is if i created the article for The Brazilian Job if they didn't even confirm it to be made. Creating this article is to be ready. Because a majority of the time, nobody reveals when a film starts filming. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:43 8 December 2011 (UTC)
When I merged and redirected, you reverted with the edit summary: "No, i refuse to get into this with you again. This is notable, it's in pre-production, it has a set filming date AND enough sourcing to warrant a seperate article". It was clear from this that you didn't want to talk about it (in fact you blatantly refused), so rather than get in to an edit war, I sought to seek consensus. As I believed (and still do) that this article should not be here just yet, AfD seemed appropriate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and "premature" is creating an article before it is notable - it is not directly related to how far along the production process a film is. A film may not be notable even if it has started filming (so if you can't find a source to say that filming has started, then it may be that there is not significant coverage to establish notability). I know I keep directing you to WP:NFF, but please, please, please consider other options before you create articles that are likely to fall foul of that guideline. Maybe create the redirect (ready for when the film is notable) and point it to somewhere where you can develop the article (i.e. "in articles about its subject material"). --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys don't think you could take this donnybrook to your respective talk pages, could you? Nothing is being accomplished by the bickering between the two of you and, frankly, it's kind of disruptive. This is a talk page for the article, and for the potential title change, not for two disputing editors. In regards to the AfD, what's done is done, and nothing the both of you say or do can change that. Buffalutheran (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have literally just a few minutes ago posted something at Rusted Auto Parts' talk page. Sorry for the disruption. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really worth bickering over this article? I mean, the discussion was closed as a keep. So if one goes by the book and another goes by the best, why not take out the best from the book?--Bumblezellio (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates based on North American seasons

Please note the phrase "Winter 2012 or Summer 2013" doesn't really make sense to the rest of the world. As Wikipedia has an international audience, please can we use actual months, or, if that would be too accurate, "first quarter", "second quarter" etc.

Regards Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.136.200 (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the alleged consensus for "Untitled Star Trek Sequel"

The Admin who moved the page justifies the move based on the last few comments? Why ignore all the previous comments that thought the page was fine with the former name? RM is a process, and all comments should have been taken into consideration. The current title sucks, to put it mildly. There is no justification for this move, no precedent for a title like this, and no consensus for this title at all. If anything, if the movie is still without a released title, then perhaps we are jumping the gun a bit on having an article at all. Wait until there is a bit more confirmed information until the article can be created. JOJ Hutton 21:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was going to ignore this since it's somewhat inconsequential, I do agree that there really was no consensus for the move, and no precedent for this title formatting as I stated twice in the discussion above.    Thorncrag  21:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While there is no actual consensus for "Untitled Star Trek Sequel" I think we can park it there until we know the actual title. The article for this movie is to be found under the same title on Memory Alpha. Obviously, however, the admin who moved the page to this name was afraid it might been moved somewhere else and protected the article, which I think is exaggerated, and, possibly, an exploitation of an admin's powers. I also see no reason why part of the discussion was moved to an user page instead of leaving it right here where it belongs. --Krawunsel (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article did not reach a consensus. However the discussion did leave behind a few scratches (literally). To put it simply, Users Rob Sinden and Rusted AutoParts had some bickering over this article when it was considered for deletion by Rob Sinden. After the consensus reached a Keep. This article was then considered for renaming by Rob Sinden. The current title is Rob Sinden's idea. But Rusted Autopart rejected that idea. So... weeks passed and I never heard from them for a while on this article. Do you really want to change the title of this article after all of that bickering?--Bumblezellio (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my comment, I explicitely stated that the article can be parked under this title until we know the real title. I just wanted to point out that no actual consensus was reached and that the admin in question obviously moved it on his own accord, and, secondly, that closing the article for any future movements is exaggerated. What I DID criticize and what I still don't like is that part of the discussion was moved to a user comment page as if it was supposed to be hidden. I understand, of course, that the discussion sometimes went beyond sound reasoning but that happens when opinions clash and when both sides are equally stubborn. --Krawunsel (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I collapsed the dispute between the editors because it was getting away from the discussion which was supposed to be "what should we call this article until an official title is announced". It was not meant to put a stop to the intended discussion. In my opinion, consensus was clearly not reached on the renaming and the closing administrator acted very hastily. That having been said, I'm not particularly concerned with what the title of this article will temporarily be, I am however concerned about administrators not thoroughly reviewing discussions, giving the impression that they are exercising based on their own opinion. I'm neutral as to renaming again, but would be open to such a discussion.    Thorncrag  18:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that there probably was just about consensus to move. (And, incidentally, the current title wasn't my suggestion, but something someone suggested within the discussion) However, if you are concerned, why not take it up with the closing admin? --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only suggested Star Trek XII because it followed in the series continuity of Roman numerals. I rejected the current title because to me it sounds silly and wouldn't be the name searched for by people wanting to know about it. Rusted AutoParts 15:16 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The article should have been moved or kept at the most common name that internet users would most likely be searching for it by, and what internet search engines would most likely produce. Don't see a scenario where "Untitled Star Trek Sequel" would be high on many peoples search engine list. That's why Wikipedia uses the most common name of a subject, so that it will show up easier in internet search engine results.--JOJ Hutton 15:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if we can apply common names into this article. The Star Trek franchise is indeed wide and names that are too common may be mistaken for another. May I suggest 2013 Star Trek Film Project? It has complete confirmation that this new film is scheduled to be released in May 2013. Even if the date changes we can still move the article to another year. So, what do you think?--Bumblezellio (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should go back to Star Trek II (2013 film). Not hardly it will be confused with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, although I'm sure someone here will try and make that futile argument.--JOJ Hutton 17:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it has been stated by the film-makers that the film will categorically not have a numeral, this is not appropriate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was asked to drop by and comment. The oppose opinions where not opposed to a rename as I read the discussion. They did have problems with the proposed name. So at best the support for the name the article was at was weak with several options being discussed. All of which had some merit. Since the film does not yet have a title, coming up with an article name is problematic. The name used for the move had the most support which was why it was selected. If you narrowed down the choices to two, clearly there was a consensus for that name that this was moved to. Given that and a perceived lack of support for the name it was at the article was moved. Now having said that, if there really and truly is support for another name the article can be moved there. However reading this discussion, I'm not convinced that there is. What I still am not seeing is some definitive data as to what the title of the project is. What is the working name for it? What name is being used in reliable sources for this project? Maybe if someone works on the case using reliable sources the discussion can reach a conclusion. Not everyone is going to be happy with the result. Oh, If this had been closed as no consensus, I suspect I would have been asked to justify that decision since there was a consensus in the discussion. I will leave an offer on the table. If you can reach a clear consensus on what the article title should be, leave me a note and I'll move the page there if admin action is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new title

Since the discussion still seems open, perhaps here would be a suitable compromise: Star Trek sequel (2013)? This seems to address the concerns of most everyone.    Thorncrag  17:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support- seems reasonable and works fine for now.--JOJ Hutton 18:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'No - this is largely unnecessary until an actual set of citations go into larger detail about the sequel. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the supporters of the current name. Calling it "Star Trek (2013 film)" implies that the film will be named "Star Trek", which I suspect will not be the case, and there's certainly no sources supporting that. The title proposed by Thorncrag would work for me as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Boycool (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems a reasonable compromise, but in keeping with naming conventions, should it be Star Trek sequel (2013 film) or even Star Trek sequel (2013 film project) (per WP:FILMPROJECT)? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thinking about it, in keeping with naming conventions, disambiguation would not be necessary, so we'd be left with Star Trek sequel. Therefore we may as well leave it where it is. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of the Great Bird of the Galaxy, leave it where it is. It will have a title soon enough. I don't think there's any real point to nitpicking the formatting of a temporary page title. --Dhartung | Talk 15:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's no better than the current title, which works fine. Hekerui (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. What if we create a link at the top of Star Trek? I do see it in the infobox but probably adding it to the top with a brief explanation of this sequel will be recommended. However, I'm afraid this might violate WP:SOAP. So I need some to think about this suggestion. The title of this sequel can remain unchanged till the official title is revealed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblezellio (talk • contribs) 00:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Until the film is officially named, "Untitled Star Trek sequel" is fine, albeit a bit clunky. Jessemv (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC
Oppose I agree with JesseMV. How do we know if the movie is finished on time? Then the year 2013 in the title would be wrong. For the moment the current title is just fine, and when the final name is known it's still not too late to move the article. --Krawunsel (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is already a future film and while it merits its own page it isn't important to move it to an equivalent title. Assuming a date of 2013 is not safe--what if a principal actor dies unexpectedly, say? This is an appropriate, descriptive title. Stare decisis, I'd say. JJL (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JJL's logic, stare decisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.232.200 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit late but IMDB and memory alpha both use this title. Oldag07 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As the film is still untitled, and could have a completely new title like "Men of Space" or something instead of just "Star Trek: *subtitle*". But nothing has been announced, I say leave it as it is. Maybe the film makers themselves don't even know yet. And I don't really know why Oldago07 said its a bit late as IMDB and memory alpha use the title suggested, don't see why it would matter if it had the same page title as IMDB or memory alpha. Charlr6 (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Information They just gave it a name. It's called "Star Trek: Into Darkness". You can let us change the title now. --Josh Ahearn 19:41 13 September 2012 (UTC)
First of all, you need to tell us who "they" are (that is, what is your source?). Also, feel free to get involved in the discussion below talk:Untitled Star Trek sequel#Requested move (again). DonQuixote (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
32 million hits on Google. Every encyclopedia and site on the planet now use the name, but thats obviously not good enough is it? All this is, is just drama for the sake of drama.--JOJ Hutton 00:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to the drama. Feel free to continue such endeavors below, talk:Untitled Star Trek sequel#Requested move (again), where you can throw around some other buzzwords as well. DonQuixote (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Image

Hey there,

I saw that there is a promotional image for the sequel near the bottom of the page. It says it will be out "Summer 2012", but should we really have this image as it says "Summer 2012" which is incorrect information?Charlr6 (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filming source

Found this source about some of the filming, if it is of interest to any editors.

http://www.movieweb.com/news/j-j-abrams-issues-paparazzi-blockade-on-set-of-star-trek-2 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (again)

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

The result of the move request was: moved by Elen of the Roads (see below). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Star Trek sequel → Star Trek Into Darkness – Title confirmed. Exclusive: Sequel Title Confirmed – ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’124.183.115.220 (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although this title has been reported on various websites, it is yet to receive any official confirmation and so this page move should not happen. We should wait for a press release from Paramount or, at the very least, a reliable mainstream media source. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the total lack of reliable sources (only blogs, thus far - no official confirmation) and the sordid history of page-move edit warring, I'm astonished, astonished that this article has been moved without even a nod toward seeking a consensus. This article should be moved back to Untitled Star Trek sequel and restored to its pre-move state. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The title was revealed. Why do you have an issue with it? Do you not like the title? The "Blogs" that you are referring to are professional blogs, and some random guy with a computer. Professional blogs are acceptable reliable sources.--JOJ Hutton 23:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it was confirmed. I even found more sources for it. And once its been confirmed for a movie title do you really expect us to wait 5 days to come up with a consensus about changing it to the new confirmed title?Charlr6 (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it was not "confirmed" by anyone. It's still a rumor and remain so until Paramount says otherwise. If the title ends up being something else, your comments are going to look pretty stupid. I'm confident that this will be the title; however, moving it without an official confirmation is a mistake. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one who seems to oppose this as of yet. See no reason to go through all this drama over something so trivial. Best thing to do is just relax and let the article (and title) evolve naturally, rather than getting all worked up over the small stuff. If its a new title later, then we move it again, no big deal. But theres's no reason to move it back to that last worthless title, when a good title has already been conformed by good sources.--JOJ Hutton 23:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm really the only one complaining (it's only been a few hours, so we don't know that yet) I'll back off in the face of consensus, but I'm still in the right about this. There's been no official confirmation and so the move was premature. And it's not "trivial" as you call it, since this article's title has been edit-warred to death over the last few months. It saddens me that people are so eager to accept shoddy, poor-quality sourcing instead of being just a teeny bit patient. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Theres been no edit warring for over 9 months on the title. You may be right about the "official" confirmation, but you are not correct about the sources. These sources say that the title will be "Star Trek Into Darkness". If Paramount decides on another title later, then we can move it to the new title, but theres very little need to stress over this move, since there are sources to back it up.--JOJ Hutton 00:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I've never actually ever seen a movie studio website or gather tons of reporters together like it's the president making a speech to the world just to confirm a movie title. So what really defines the actual studio confirming a title? Huh? Charlr6 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Usually a press release of some kind. Studios have PR departments that handle this sort of stuff.--JOJ Hutton 13:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surprise, surprise! It's been moved again. Perhaps people can see now why I thought the move was premature. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing an uppercase "L" with a lowercase "l" is hardly the "ah-ha" moment that you are making it out to be. It was just a technical move on MOS grounds. JOJ Hutton 15:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may continue to defend the indefensible if you wish (I know that you are quite used to this), but my point has been proven. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No you're trying to cause drama where drama doesn't exist. Don't know how to respond to your I know that you are quite used to this, comment, but I'm sure it was a compliment on my behalf.--JOJ Hutton 15:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't. I'm familiar with your battleground mentality from your work in other articles. You have been the only person who has vociferously argued with me, even though I've been right about this issue all the way down the line. Anyway, my prediction that the article would have to be moved again came to fruition, and there's still no official confirmation (which is always in the form of a Paramount press release, as it has been since the first Star Trek movie). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, now I see where you are coming from. I on the other hand tend to take each topic separately and independently and try not to use past disputes of discussions as a tool. I try and use guidelines and policy to advance a position, so sorry if you oppose using guidelines to determine consensus. There are plenty of reliable sources saying that this is going to be the name of the film. You seem to want some sort of official announcement from Paramount, but there is nothing in the naming policy that even remotely says that there needs to be. Only that we use the title used by most English Language Sources. So again, sorry if the guidelines are getting in the way of your argument. And no you are not right about this issue, Why? Because your argument is not based on policy, but based on your beliefs. Your "prediction" that the article would be moved again did not come to fruition. You must really be grabbing at straws if you feel that a small technical MOS fix is somehow a huge vindication that you were correct.--JOJ Hutton 17:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JOJ, you can't argue rationally with an irrational person. Clearly Scjessey takes it personally that I moved the page or maybe he's just not pleased with the title itself and thinks he could do better. Either way, the page has been moved, the new title is Star Trek into Darkness, IF it changes than you can have your big 'I told you so' moment. But until that happens...deal with it. Lady Lotus (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if it does change, and who knows, but if it does change its still clear that we are using the current sources to determine the title now. If it changes, then we use those new sources, but I don't feel that anything is harmed with this current title, as long as its backed up with sources. Just WP:DRAMA.--JOJ Hutton 17:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Scjessey said "Surprise, surprise! It's been moved again. Perhaps people can see now why I thought the move was premature.", no, you were complaining about not coming up with a consensus. Contradictory how you didn't mind that move back. You also say "I've been right about this issue all the way down the line", someone is arrogant. I don't think you should come and comment back and create more "WP:DRAMA", unless you have any useful information for the article. And as several sources have said that the film is now "Star Trek into Darkness", we can keep it that way until a new source comes up or possibly a new title. I found a new reference; [1], which is from a pretty well known website, but don't know whether I should add it or not. Does anyone think I should or do you think the ones we have are enough? Charlr6 (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're just citing TrekMovie, so it's no different than the very first link above. DonQuixote (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that the page move was premature, and this was proven by the need to move it again. There's still no official confirmation - just blogs. When I first brought up the problem, I was jumped on for disagreeing with the move and so I defended myself. I'm sure this is indeed the correct title (I've repeatedly said so), but it is standard procedure on Wikipedia to wait for confirmation from proper reliable sources before acting. And now all the people who supported the premature move insist on behaving like assholes at a Tea Party rally and strutting around as if they own the place. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you strut around like a kid who can't have their own way. Charlr6 (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't know that I was behaving like an asshole at a tea party rally and strutting around like I own the place, but I'll actually take that as a compliment, even though I'm pretty sure it wasn't meant to be. But since Scjessey doesn't like it I guess the rest of us are wrong. So much for WP:CONSENSUS.--JOJ Hutton 22:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, keep it civil. Biting each other's heads off won't help much. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:35 9 September 2012 (UTC)
So want to make a comment about whats the point of wars with different countries and politics with you saying that, but I won't.... Whoops.
I think that we should all just leave it now and wait a couple of days/weeks until hopefully more information about the title or movie has been announced. Charlr6 (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, guys. Sorry for the late response. I mostly agree with Scjessey. I shouldn't have moved the article so quickly. I was trying to repair a copy-and-paste move, and failed to notice the discussion here. The sources are probably right about the title, but until we have official confirmation or corroboration from unambiguously reliable sources, the page should stay where it was. I apologize for creating a disruption. - Eureka Lott 12:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so basically what you are saying is that you used your tools to make a change on a page against the consensus. It is not in admin's privilege to make changes against consensus. JOJ Hutton 13:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. He admitted to making a poor and quick decision. DonQuixote (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We forgive you EurekaLott. But like I've said before, I've never seen an official confirmation from a movie studio and whatever the mentioned "PR Group" would do then they must contact various news websites, because I have never seen an original source (as in a Paramount PR Group) of information for something as simple as the title. We can keep looking it up and if it turns out its a hoax, jokes on us for believing it. Charlr6 (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Paramount Pictures almost always puts out a press release when they are ready to provide official confirmation. Such releases are usually found here. That being said, they're usually quite tardy with their releases - often weeks after an "official site" or trailer has gone live. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That took you a long time to find that after I mentioned it yesterday and obviously wanted some information about it. Charlr6 (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I didn't realize you were unaware of it. I assumed everyone knew it would be the first port of call for official news of any kind. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I've never actually ever seen a movie studio website or gather tons of reporters together like it's the president making a speech to the world just to confirm a movie title." So it goes straight to the website instead, would have been helpful earlier to know. Charlr6 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above source is a reliable source however. The site is used as a reliable source on other articles. There is nothing in the naming guidelines that require a film articles title to be "released" by the studio. These types of issues are usually handled through the media. Star Trek dot com being one those reliable sources.JOJ Hutton 19:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not reliable, dude. It's a blog. They "exclusively revealed" that it was going to be about Khan, and nobody believes that anymore. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs that are news sources are considered reliable sources. It's the personal blogs by some guy in his mothers basement that are unreliable, but news blogs are considered just as reliable as any other source and are held to the same journalistic standards.--JOJ Hutton 02:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now support the move, given what seems to be clear Paramount-approved communication on the topic. Powers T 20:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And who just went and changed it again? Ok, Scjessey or whoever it was who was against the change without a consensus first, ok, now you are right, there should definitely be discussions before anything is moved. Charlr6 (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once the article was moved back, it was obvious that some sort of explanation would be needed in the text. What's the problem? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, can't just move articles back and forth willy nilly, it should have stayed Star Trek Into Darkness until a consensus was finally reached (with 'for's and 'against's). If it can freely go back to the old title without a consensus then whats the point of having a consensus at all? Very contradictory. Nothing was mentioned on here about the move at all. You wanted a consensus for the move, and there ARE supposed to be consensus for every page move. EurkeaLott said they were trying to fix a problem so thats fair dues as it was an accident. But it can't just go back and forth willy nilly without a consensus because its getting absurd now. Charlr6 (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. There appeared to be consensus for using the reliable sources to confirm the title, per the guidelines on what reliable sources are. There was no consensus for stating that Paramount has to actually make some sort of announcement, nor is there any guideline stating that this needs to be so. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources are saying. Its not one editors job to question that reliable source, just because he doesn't like it.--JOJ Hutton 23:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There are enough reliable sources to move the page. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The sources are inadequate and solely come from a bunch of blogs, which of any sort are never reliable sources (unless it is a blog run by the subject or its subsidiaries).—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The source you are referring to is considered a reliable source by wikipedia standards. Its not a personal blog, but a news blog, which are acceptable sources because they are held to the same journalistic standards.--JOJ Hutton 02:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS says "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Is this the case for TrekMovie.com, Collider.com, or "The Geek Files", all of the information from which is derived from TrekMovie?—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And Trekmovie.com is considered a reliables source, so whats the problem?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs)
    I disagree with that assertion. It's just a fansite/blog.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's always been considered a reliable source before now. It's used in other articles. Its a news blogs, and news blogs are acceptable reliable sources. Only personal blogs are considered unacceptable.--JOJ Hutton 02:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the site itself, so take it with a grain of salt:
In just a few months TrekMovie.com established a reputation for scooping the big Trek news, and was was regularly cited as a source by sites like Aint It Cool News, Slashdot, Fark, Cinematical, TV Squad, SciFiWire, Dark Horizons, Yahoo Movies and many others. TrekMovie and Anthony Pascale have even been cited on the cable network G4TV, local TV stations and in the The Wall Street Journal."

DonQuixote (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this guy come from to revert me instead of Jojhutton?—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its because you are jumping into the game without knowing the score. You come here and begin reverting and attacking reliable sources, without discussing first. Get in the game, but don't start throwing the ball around until you know where the goal is.--JOJ Hutton 03:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a whole lot of sports references for one reply ;) Anyone else getting tired of how ridiculous this debate how gotten? Lady Lotus (talk)
Yep, Just a bunch of unsubstantiated WP:DRAMA. Then when the article was moved back, all that did was make it worse. Drama, Drama, Drama.
God forbid I bring this up and get my head chopped off but IMDb changed the name to Star Trek Into Darkness and before anybody even utters the words "unreliable" because I know it is in fact IMDb, they are pretty legit when it comes to the titles of films. Just throwing it out there is the war on the title. Lady Lotus (talk)
IMDb is a user-submitted website just like Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's only partially correct, if I am remembering right. Users can add certain details, but they can't make title changes on their own. That is run by the site administrators. If I am not mistaken.--JOJ Hutton 11:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Entertainment Weekly, Chicago Sun-Times, San Jose Mercury News. --j⚛e deckertalk 12:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the rush? Every so-called "reliable" source listed in this discussion thus far has either got their information from TrekMovie (which also "confirmed" the main villain was Khan, but now aren't so sure) or just guessed at it because of the domain registration thing (and studios often register domains as a smokescreen). The article already refers to this new title, but simply doesn't commit itself to it because it hasn't been verified by an official source such as the studio, a trailer or one of the film's production team and cast. I ask again, what's the rush? There's simply no need to jump the gun on this. I'm confident official confirmation of some sort will be available soon enough, so let's just wait until then. Enough people disagree with moving this page (including the administrator who moved it earlier) that there's no clear consensus to move at the moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Well, there you go again. Questioning the validity of reliable sources. I would like to point out one of the characteristics of a tendentious editor Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources. The sources are good and do not say that they "got their information from TrekMovie". That is an outright untruth.--JOJ Hutton 13:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. A reliable source will be available soon enough. TrekMovie have not disclosed where they get their information from, yet all the other "reliable sources" seem to have got their information from them. We can wait a bit longer. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Untrue. There is no indication in Sun-Times or the Mercury-Mews that the they got their information from TrekMovie. That is WP:OR to suggest so.--JOJ Hutton 13:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come now. Both of those sources are entertainment blogs just parroting what they see in the blogosphere. Oh, and your TEND claim against me is bullshit because there are a number of other editors who agree with my position on this. Why are you so insistent that the article be moved ahead of official confirmation? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)There doesn't seem to be any indication where they got their information from, but it seems that the media the whole world over is reporting from a single source - TrekMovie. Reputable publications like Empire are reporting with the proviso that TrekMovie broke the story. If there was a reliable source out there, someone would have mentioned where the story came from. Wikipedia isn't a news website, and there is no rush. We can wait for something more reliable. It can't be long. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:V, a core content "policy", Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. The personal belief that the sources are incorrect or that we must wait until some "official" confirmation is not supported by policies or guidelines. The fact that you feel, in your opinion, that "all" the sources are quoting Trekmovie, is also not supported by guidelines. There isn't anything wrong with the sources, and there are no "competing sources" giving conflicting information. They all say the same thing.--JOJ Hutton 14:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    From the same page regarding Newsblogs: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process". Which is exactly what we have here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody has yet said why it is so incredibly urgent that this change must be made immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Now you are attributing your personal feeling/bias for the source based on your preferred outcome. The source has been used in the past as a reliable source on many occasions. It's considered reliable for Star Trek information, always has. There is no reason to dismiss the source now, based soley on the WP:IDLI argument.--JOJ Hutton 14:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for a second opinion at the Reliable sources noticeboard. And please assume good faith. I have no "personal feelings" on this, in fact personally I think the blog and the title probably is right. I just don't think it's reliable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And still nobody can tell me why this is so urgent. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is one of the highest viewed internet sites for information, and people expect the articles to be up to date, and not have to go through all this technical Drama, just to make the article's name reflect what the reliable sources are confirming. Article traffic for this month [4], [5]. You will notice the obvious spike in traffic of course. Too bad the spike in readers aren't getting the most up to date information. Just another reason for people to think that Wikipedia isn't reliable.--JOJ Hutton 17:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What people expect Wikipedia to be and what Wikipedia is are two different things. Wikipedia literally does not have to mention the title until the movie premieres (at which point we won't need reliable sources). The point is that we can wait for a source that is more widely accepted as being reliable. DonQuixote (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't normally say that Twitter is a reliable source, but this one is a little different. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that is the best source we will get and closest to an official one, and more or less is an official confirmation. Simon Pegg is part of the film, an actor in it as we all know. Charlr6 (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to step on anyone's toes, and skimming through the conversation, I don't want any part of the argument, but as of today, the title has been confirmed by paramount. Now would be an appropriate time to change it.

Oldag07 (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop throwing that around. From WP:TEND: "The perception that 'he who is not for me is against me' is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate." DonQuixote (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I say just go ahead and change it. I'm not doubting you, but I went onto the Paramount website and nothing new was on there. Charlr6 (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. We have a couple of blogs saying Paramount has confirmed, but nothing from Paramount itself or any of the other sources one would consider reliable. Frankly, it's really fucking irritating. I wish Paramount would just go ahead and confirm already! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on this. I looked earlier to see if there was any new news, and I only found some new articles from the past day or couple of hours, but nothing that hasn't already been said in previous articles. I even looked on BBC News as they are usually quite good. Charlr6 (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody make a page for "Star Trek Into Darkness!"

Cuz that's what it's called. Yeah, only trekmovie website rumour now but domain names have been registered by Paramount so, y'know, yay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.62.90 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there's not exclamation point in the title. Sorry. I'm easily excitable. But maybe there is. Pretty cool if there was one, wouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.62.90 (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me, or should there not be a note about it being a rumoured title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.205.98 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The change cannot be made until there's official confirmation. And the text already explains about the new title. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Change CAN be made if sources confirm the title, which they do now.--JOJ Hutton 23:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've found multiple sources from the last few hours that announce the official confirmation of the title "Star Trek Into Darkness". I would move the article myself, but I don't seem to have that option. Alphius (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A single editor has been able to prevent the move of this article on the basis that, in his opinion, Paramount can be the only one who can officially confirm the title, despite that provision not being located in the guidelines. I will point out, however, that another editor expressed opposition to a page move today as well, so technically its not just a "single" editor anymore, but its still not sufficient to prevent this article from following the guidelines on reliable sources.--JOJ Hutton 02:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say "only" Paramount can confirm. That's a lie. Paramount, Skydance, Bad Robot, a cast member, a member of the production team, a trailer - ANY of these would be sufficient because they would be more "official" than a fan blog. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zachary Quinto has confirmed it.Anonymous173.57.44.147 (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TAH DAH, Paramount has confirmed it!!! Move the freakin article already.SOURCE HERE!!!--94.170.227.166 (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That source cites Deadline...which is already mentioned in the above discussion. Try again. DonQuixote (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paramount confirms.--JOJ Hutton 02:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be as it may, the above citing of hitfix while ignoring that they in turn cite Deadline is poor practice and doesn't really add anything. DonQuixote (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If every source says the same thing and no source is conflicting with it, then I don't see why you two are having such an issue with this. Again I point to the same section of TEND. I've just never seen such objections to reliable sources before. It astounds me.--JOJ Hutton 02:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Lots of sources saying the same thing doesn't mean much when all they're doing is citing the same single source. In effect, it's just one source saying it and all the other ones are just mirroring it. It's giving what one sources says undue weight. And sorry, people disagreeing with your assessment of a source doesn't automatically make it WP:TEND. DonQuixote (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HERE! Look, I could get a bazillion sources including the tweet Simon pegg made about this. This objection to change the name is so stupid. ANOTHER SOURCE--94.170.227.166 (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's just citing Deadline, so it's not really "another" source. It's just mirroring the first one. DonQuixote (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG YOu sir are being a prick right now. Simon Pegg just tweeted it. he should know; HE'S IN THE BLOOMING MOVIE!!!!! Oh my days --94.170.227.166 (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need for name calling, but I do believe there is a bit of original thought going on here, because nowhere in the guidelines does it support that train of thought.--JOJ Hutton 02:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er...I never said anything about Simon Pegg. I just pointed out that pointing to sources that just cite a source we already have doesn't add anything.
From WP:RS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context."

So the two sources above aren't the best sources because all they do is cite Deadline. DonQuixote (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can prove that the sources have a history of unreliability, they are considered reliable and are sufficient for verifiability.--JOJ Hutton 03:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not how it works. The reliability of a source has to be affirmed. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Also, from WP:RS, "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." DonQuixote (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep the claim is made and backed by sources. You are confusing the editor with the source on that one. And how are those sources not reliable? --JOJ Hutton 03:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"You can't call every source unreliable, because you want to"...and you can't call every source reliable because you want to either. And that's my main objection. You've brush-stroked every source, whether they deserve it or not, as being reliable. You've also brush-stroked everyone disagreeing with you as WP:TEND...you've even brush-stroked people who only object to your brush-strokes as WP:TEND. Sorry I pointed out the errors in your arguments, but that has nothing to do with WP:TEND.
And as for the two sources above, they aren't as reliable as Deadline because all they did was to cite Deadline without verifying with any primary source. So, in this case, it's just better to go straight to the original source, which is Deadline. DonQuixote (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about this source? Simon Pegg's Twitter Dracuns (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was mentioned above, and also in the previous thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by you. Congratulations. I think thats the best source we have, as its from someone actually involved with the movie. Charlr6 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that we have 2 independent sources (Deadline and Trekmovie), along with Simon Pegg's twitter, the fact that Paramount has registered the domain names and now further reliable sources are discussing the name TheWeek.com and publishing (unofficial?) banners. Have we enough to move this now? WormTT(talk) 14:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's enough, as TrekMovie and Memory Alpha only publish confirmed material, and Paramount have yet to deny the title. RAP (talk) 14:43 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that so far, the only thing we have approaching a reliable source is Deadline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Pegg's twitter, he is part of the production. "How do you get past the curse of the ":"? You get rid of it altogether. Trek ain't a noun, it's a verb. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS MAY 2013". He is part of the production, we can't just ignore that fact. Charlr6 (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am still of the opinion that we have zero actual reliable sources. My personal feeling is that Simon Pegg's Twitter comment is the closest we have to an actual confirmation, but unfortunately Twitter cannot be considered an RS. The claim that TrekMovie and Memory Alpha "only publish confirmed material" is ridiculous, by the way. As I've said many times before, there's no rush. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scjessey, what do you want? J.J. Abrams and Paramount to personally e-mail you telling you what the title is? A cast member has reffered to it as Into Darkness. Sources Wikipedia use like Deadline and Hitflix say "Paramount confirms." No denial of the title has been released and it's been 4 days. Now, I don't know if it's what i said or you just don't like the title, but we need to act, as Untitled Star Trek Sequel isn't what's it's called anymore. I say we take a vote, reach and consensus, and if you still have a problem, then it makes you a hypocrite, as this is on your wall: "If in doubt, leave it out.
Consensus before contentious.
Science before stupid." RAP (talk) 18:58 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, RAP. You've got it all backwards, of course. We must have verification before we can proceed. And consensus is not the same as a vote. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vote would build the consensus, but anyway, it's not like it would convince you anyway. You have everyone here running around, name-calling and digging through the farthest reaches of the internet just to satisfy your need of high class confirmation. This atmosphere you constructed is tense and you simply ignore every reliable source used in the past by questioning their validity. Even when a castmember refers to it as Into Darkness you look at it and say "Nope. Try again." Everyone is running around for you. Let me tell you: This is no hill, you're no king and we are not your lackeys. RAP (talk) 19:12 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It's the Twitter of someone involved in the production. It isn't just some random person pretending to be Simon Pegg. And you say there is no rush, only because you just want the official confirmation, which you've established a lot of times now. The RS is irrelevant and pointless, because this is by someone, involved in the production of the new Star Trek film, this is a lead actor, and also a good friend of JJ Abrams now. Wikipeida has so many contradicting rules. This is the official Twitter for someone involved in the production, not someone posing as him. He wouldn't have put that up and a release date, if that wasn't the title. This is like waiting to see the death certificate of an actor for 100% proof instead of trusting, for example, a reliable website like BBC News. Charlr6 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get too involved in this, but WP:SELFPUB might allow for that tweet to be used as a source. But like I said, I'm not going to get too involved in this conversation. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, WP:TWITTER states that Twitter may sometimes be used as a source and I would be willing to accept that if we had verification from a reliable source (which we don't, despite claims to the contrary). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is Simon Peggs official twitter. It has the blue tick next to his name, which means Twitter have gone and checked to see if it is the real Simon Pegg, and it is. We do have a reliable source, Simon Pegg, on his own Twitter. How is that so hard to understand? If Twitter can sometimes be used as a source, then there you go. Simon Peggs twitter saying "How do you get past the curse of the ":"? You get rid of it altogether. Trek ain't a noun, it's a verb. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS MAY 2013". His twitter has been verified by Twitter themselves that it is the real him, indicated by the blue tick next to his name. Him, telling us the movie title, saying "How do you get past the curse of the ":"? You get rid of it altogether. Trek ain't a noun, it's a verb. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS MAY 2013" is the reliable source, because its him, his Twitter has been confirmed. Can it be put any more clearly? Charlr6 (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need independent verification for a self-published source. Besides, Simon Pegg often tweets stuff to deliberately mislead. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make something perfectly clear to all the assholes who keep bashing me. I want to see the title updated as soon as possible. I'm searching the internet, particularly the likely places such as Paramount, Bad Robot, Skydance and the websites of cast and crew, all the time in the hope of getting confirmation. The current "untitled" page name is irritating and ugly. I just want to make sure we follow Wikipedia's policy for reliable sources and make sure we get a proper confirmation before we pull the trigger. Is that so unreasonable? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So just because you think he tweets to mislead automatically makes it not official? And you do know, calling people an asshole is against Wikipedia's civility and could be classed as a personal attack. You said yourself, Twitter can be used as a source, and we have Simon Peggs official Twitter with a tweet. His Twitter has been checked and it is him, himself, officially. And also you wanted a consensus for the title change, and if you would prefer the title to go up instead of this 'ugly' one, then you shouldn't have done anything and just thought "ok, this page looks attractive now because it has a nice title". Charlr6 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can we wait for Paramount, Skydance or Bad Robot when Paramount and Skydance update by what they release in the year, and Bad Robot's site is only a picture of the logo? And now we're assholes for questioning your motives? You are charging that reliable sources like Deadline and Hitflix aren't reliable and the confirmation on a cast member's Twitter doesn't count. RAP (talk) 19:29 14 September 2012 (UTC)
@Charl6 - I'm saying that because Tweets are self published and often mislead, we need to make sure we have independent confirmation. And if people are going to behave like assholes, I'm going to go ahead and describe them as such. Several comments above have called into question my motives, rather than my actions. People who do that are assholes.
@RAP - Deadline and Hitflix are not reliable sources. They're blogs. See above re: "assholes". -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People who call other people "assholes" are even bigger "assholes". RAP (talk) 19:41 14 September 2012 (UTC)
If you say so. I applaud your recursive logic. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shame too, i thought i was taught to respect those older than me. But if someone who's 41 acts like this on the internet, what else to do, but allow The Snide Games to commence. RAP (talk) 19:51 14 September 2012 (UTC)
@ScASSey - We only have your word so far that Simon Pegg misleads things in his tweets. Has he ever put up a tweet trying to confirm something that was 100% not true?
You know I wanted to report you the last time you insulted other editors on Wikipedia, but I didn't out of the kindness in my heart. But as it seems to be appropriate to call people assholes, then may I redirect you to this page so you can choose yourself which word best describes yourself. I would pick one myself for you, but I'm not an 'asshole'. Charlr6 (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is official, Into Darkness is the title.

While some of the sources in the past few days have been questionable, new sources as of today state that Into Darkness is the official title. I would do it, but the move has caused so much debate.



Oldag07 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A) IMDB isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia (and even Wikipedia isn't a reliable source when trying to find proof for another person on Wikipedia).
B) It seems that a few people, not me though, are fully waiting for an official announcement from Paramount themselves. As I'm not though, I say, if you want him, come and claim him---- sorry, quoting Lord of the Rings for a moment there. If you want to, move the page. Some people want a consensus, but waiting for a consensus when the evidence is out there of the detail is stupid. Charlr6 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*The page is locked. it can't be moved.Wingman1 23:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Then who can unlock it? And how long is it locked for?Charlr6 (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i would contact an admin about it, like i did about all the cursing and junk.Wingman1 23:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingman1 (talk • contribs)
Cursing and junk? When was that? Is that the thing way above that you have to click the 'show' button for? I've never read it. But you should probably contact the admin soon as there do seem to be at least three main reliable sources we could possibly use to reference. Charlr6 (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny because I've moved pages before and found it quite easy. Sort out the redirects is pretty easy. Moving the page itself is easy. So, yeah. Charlr6 (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy. Too easy. There has already been a move discussion, above, at Talk:Untitled_Star_Trek_sequel#Requested_move. Once there are multiple moves, and move reverts, it gets ugly. Given that someone has already thought to move-protect the page, there needs to be an explicit consensus to move again. The current candidate seems to be:
but are we sure it is not
or
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do know there was a move discussion, and with Wikipedia standard reliable sources some people weren't happy with them. It's only ugly if people make it to be awkward, or just because they don't like it themselves. And the film is not going to be called "Star Trek XII: Into Darkness", the people who discussed that weren't thinking realistic. That would be like calling the 2011 Captain America film "Captain America 2: First Avenger" just because of the 1990 movie. On Simon Pegg's twitter he said the movie title is "Star Trek Into Darkness", and even commented on the use of the colon. And he is the top reliable source, because he is actually from the production, the other 'sources' are just articles.
And actually, once Paramount 100% confirms the title, why should there still be a consensus? Because if a film title is confirmed, we can't just discuss if we are going to put it in or not. And I'm talking about once it is 100% confirmed by Paramount, and even maybe a video of JJ Abrams saying "yes, this is the title". But I do not see why there would be a consensus there, because just think about it, why form a consensus to put a title on Wikipedia when the movie title has been 100% confirmed. And it doesn't need to be "Star Trek Into Darkness (film)" or "Star Trek Into Darkness (2013 film)", because there are no other wikipedia pages that have the same title. If the movie was a remake of Wrath of Khan and had the same title then yes, the bit in brackets would be necessary.
But like I said, once the title has been 100% confirmed (and thats all I mean, no hidden context), there shouldn't be a consensus, it should just be moved. The reason being, a consensus on putting the title up, even though it is 100% confirmed is a waste of breath and is almost like editors would deny its the title, and just discuss for a few days what it should be, even though it has been 100% confirmed. It's like coming up with a consensus to put some actors death date on Wiki, even though their death has been 100% confirmed, or if a new president came around in November, even though it is revealed over every new site about this new President taking over from Obama. What I have just said is really not hard to understand unless anyone is just going to be awkward for the sake of it. Charlr6 (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


If is good enough for IMDB. . . . Oldag07 (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:IMDB, it isn't a reliable source. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how about ..............

http://www.deadline.com/tag/star-trek-into-darkness/  ?

Wingman1 12:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingman1 (talk • contribs)

I think that's the closest we have to a reliable source, but it's not ideal, and its reliability has been questioned by others in above move discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the reliability of Deadline is questioned, then the best thing to do is probably to find one or more other independent sources (independent as in not citing some other online source) that's equal to or better than Deadline so that they can bolster each other up. DonQuixote (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Pegg's tweet. He is part of the production. Charlr6 (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the reliability of this has been questioned as well. Just because he's part of the production, doesn't mean he knows the title. He may only think that's what it's called, or the title could still be being discussed, and he's heard a rumour. I'm not saying that is the case, but it does illustrate the unreliability of twitter unless it is in the form of an official announcement. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the reliability of someone involved in the production and good friends with the director. He's the biggest fan of Star Trek in the cast of the 2009 film, another reason he is good friends with the director. It is obvious he was revealing the title because he added "MAY 2013" at the end, just like you'd see on a poster or teaser trailer. Charlr6 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[Here ] is an official source that lists the title as Star Trek Into Darkness. No colon. Paramount and IMAX logos on the page and press release.

The edit war is ridiculous. The title is official. Page should be moved as soon as possible. --Krevans (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At last, a proper source. With this new reliable source, I am prepared to support the moving of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, looks good to me as well. We could have saved several thousand bytes of pointless discussion if proponents had just waited until official sources were available. Powers T 20:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're happy with that source Scjessey? Still not an official statement from Paramount like you'd want one to be. I'm not having a go though, I'm just saying. Charlr6 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the kind of official confirmation I was looking for. If you review the discussion, you will see that at no time did I say only Paramount would be an acceptable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"… so until Paramount says otherwise".
"... and there's still no official confirmation (which is always in the form of a Paramount press release, as it has been since the first Star Trek movie)."
These are two quotes from you, wanting full confirmation from Paramount themselves. You even got annoyed later on and swore at how annoyed you were that they weren't releasing anything. You even gave a link to the Paramount website to the news/press release section. But now you are saying that you never said Paramount would be an acceptable source, even though it seemed like you really wanted them themselves to release and confirm information... Makes perfect sense..... Charlr6 (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are misrepresenting my comments. At no time did I say only Paramount would be an acceptable source. I gave a rough list of potential sources (cast, crew, Skydance et al) of which Paramount was one of them. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you shouldn't write comments in a way that could get misrepresented then. Reliable sites (that according to Wikipedia are reliable) were given, but you still weren't happy with them. And a few times you did seem anxious to actually get a full confirmation from the studio themselves. Charlr6 (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (for reals this time)

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

The result of the move request was: moved by Elen of the Roads. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Star Trek sequel → Star Trek into Darkness – It appears the regular editors of this page have come to a consensus to move this article to Star Trek into Darkness. Sourcing, though not perfect, seems reliable enough to confirm "Star Trek Into Darkness" will indeed be the title, although per WP:CAPS the "Into" must be lowercase. Notable sources include IMAX.com, Entertainment Weekly and a Twitter comment from Simon Pegg. Editors have expressed support in the previous thread, but may wish to do so again below. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Can someone contact an admin and get them to unblock the page and the move the page!!! Come on, seriously guys. I would do it myself, but I have no idea who this admin is. Or where I would find them. Charlr6 (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Should have happened weeks ago, if not for the persistence of a small minority of editors who insisted that good sources were in fact bad sources, but are now uses those same sources to justify their own "change of heart". The iMax article is no worse or better than any of the others. Good Grief, the drama.--JOJ Hutton 00:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Display Title"

What exactly does that do anyway? Does it need to be there? Why all the drama over it?--JOJ Hutton 00:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Star Trek Into Darkness or Star Trek into Darkness?

All of the sources I have read have Star Trek Into Darkness but one of the requests is for Star Trek into Darkness.Bte99 (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As most of them say "Star Trek Into Darkness", then it probably will more than likely be that. Not that it matters, but I personally think that 'into' having a capital letter makes it look cooler sort of, not as in a silly teenage 'thats well cool blud', but just as in nicer. More attractive title. Only things in movie titles I don't think should have capitals letters (and they rarely do I think) are words like "of", "and", "the". Charlr6 (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Please read WP:CAPS. "Into" is a short preposition and is not being used in a prepositional phrase and thus should be capitalized. BOVINEBOY2008 03:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Star Trek Into Darkness is the proper noun. It is the title of the movie, and should not be altered regardless of misspelling, miscapitalisation or improper punctuation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Titles of films, books etc aren't proper nouns by themselves. It's The Lord of the Rings not The Lord Of The Rings for example. A more serious question would be - is it Star Trek:Into Darkness (same format as all other things Star Trek). I'll move it if the discussion above confirms that this film uses a different notation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got it. We're on the move folks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think that it should be 'Into'. But I'm just glad the title has changed. But once a poster or trailer comes out, if it says "Star Trek Into Darkness", we should change it to reflect the movie. If its "Star Trek: Into Darkness" (either with a capital 'i' or not), then we should change it to that. But if the case comes alone when a trailer or poster does say differently to the Wikipedia name, I highly hope it won't take weeks and weeks of discusstion, mostly pointless to change it. It's like, if the movie says so, we should do that. Its like with a plot we write what is said on screen, not come up with our own assumptions about something because that would be OR. But if the time comes, and a trailer or movie poster says otherwise (with a capital 'i' or colon between "trek" and "into") then we should change it more or less ASAP, because we can't just deny what we see on screens. Charlr6 (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Into" can only be capitalized if it follows a colon. Star Trek into Darkness and Star Trek: Into Darkness are the only permissible variations, irrespective of how the title is promoted. WP:CAPS is quite specific on this. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Once there are movie trailers and posters, we can't ignore what we see. That would be like saying a movie is one genre, instead of the genre the director, and writer and studio even said themselves. And if we do that, and change the movie title ourselves just to suit Wikipedias rules, its kind of ignorant and arrogant because, the information would be there (if the movie is "Star Trek Into Darkness") but just choose to ignore it. I'm not accusing anyone now though, I'm just saying that if the time came, we can't ignore what is put there just because we don't believe its right. It would be like ignoring that an actor said his date of birth was 10th February 1972, but choosing to trust his birth certificate which says 11th February 1972, where even probably rare, they could have made a mistake. It would be like refusing to believe aliens exist even if one comes down and stares at you in the face. Charlr6 (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how titling works. Short prepositions like "into" are always lowercased (in these circumstances) and we do not change the naming of an article to match the styling of the promotional material. It would be the same if, for instance, the title was advertised as "star trek into darkness". We could note this in the article, but the article would still be named "Star Trek into Darkness". 15:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
What Scjessey and the chap above said. Treat it as an oddity of Wikipedia. (And from years spent researching my family tree, the only reliable evidence for date of birth is what the registrar filled in, because he did it based on a slip of paper from the midwife. People will put down any nonsense about when and where they were born if you leave it up to them.)Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was using that as an example. You have just gone and created a personality for the person in the example saying 'they can say whatever they like' because that person might want to be ten years younger. Which was besides the point I was trying to make. Want to create a personality for the other example I had? Maybe the person didn't believe in aliens because it was staring them in the face because they were blind? Charlr6 (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, here is a question, what was the point of everyone supporting, as you'll see above "Star Trek Into Darkness", if that title wasn't going to be used? And of course if the title was all lower case we would change it, thats a huge difference. But we still can't ignore what is said. Would be like ignoring the president has been assassinated even though there is a video of it, until we see a death certificate. You could even say that changing it to suit ourselves would be OR. Charlr6 (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I recommend you let this drop. Or go over to WT:CAPS and get the policy changed for the project. I have moved it to the policy compliant version. WWIII over the capital I really would be WP:LAME. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should let it drop? Oh, yes, of course. I am sorry. I didn't realise this had been going on for days now and everyone has been getting annoyed over it. Charlr6 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In the most recent move discussion (the one initiated by me that specifically mentions the "into" rationale) you supported Star Trek into Darkness. Wikipedia made this rule long ago to make sure there was consistency across all articles. The specific Manual of Style guideline is MOS:CT. "Into" is a preposition of four letters or less and must, therefore, be lowercase in composition titles. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed move from "Requested move (again)" was 'Untitled Star Trek sequel → Star Trek Into Darkness'. If you actually look up. And at least four and more people supported it to "Star Trek Into Darkness". And the final time was because it was "Requested move (for reals)", and I saw there was a new requested move so supported it. I've just looked up and that move was for "Star Trek into Darkness", and I bet if it had the capital 'i', then it would have been supported all by mostly the same people for that. And I never saw you against the capital 'i' in into until recently. Charlr6 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:CAP. Such things as "Into" will always be changed to "into" regardless. As Elen has pointed out, arguing about it here is pointless as it won't change a thing. Go to WT:CAPS if you want to change policy. DonQuixote (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And she has just arrived, after everything. But people on here did support for "Star Trek Into Darkness". Wasn't until recently that the 'into' came around. But whatever. Charlr6 (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:CAP has always been there, whether we paid attention to it or not. So, regardless, "Into" will always be changed in "into" and "when" someone joined a conversation is irrelevant to this issue. DonQuixote (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But if no one had remembered/noticed it, then it still would have been "Into" wouldn't it? IDoes wikipedia have an auto bot that if you try and move the page with 'into' with a capital 'i' would automatically change it to a lower case one? And also, I have seen a few Wikipedia rules that contradict each other. Charlr6 (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, so please discuss them at WT:CAPS. DonQuixote (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This movie title is a proper noun because it is written in (presumably) deliberate error of punctuation. This error/controversy is discussed in reliable sources. It is not Wikipedia's role to decide on which error is primary, and to correct it. As a proper noun, it should be reproduced as written in the sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Even on Simon Peggs twitter he mentions it. Charlr6 (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is Wikipedia's role insofar as Star Trek Into[sic] Darkness...but that doesn't look as nice. Anyway, all these points can be made at WT:CAPS. DonQuixote (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:CAPS is just fine. It is a very good guideline, to be interpreted carefully in unusual cases. This is an unusual case. It is, however, easily reconcilable with WP:CAPS by accepting the non-standard English that is the title as a proper noun. For a comparison, consider Thr3e. There is an abvious deliberate typo, and we don't need "[sic]". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. However, you're interpreting "Into" as being stylized, and, unlike "Thr3e", it's not as obvious, so we need a reliable source to verify that. Until then, we can treat it in the same way as "STAR TREK" vs. "Star Trek". DonQuixote (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I try to interpret it as stylized, which includes a deliberate disregard for normal punctuation. Alternatives are an ignorant executive, or a transcription error. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of examples: the article for the iPhone is IPhone (although to my mind, it should be Iphone if it is going to follow convention properly). Consider Men in Black, which the studio writes as Men In Black. We need to stick to the Manual of Style (not Manual Of Style!) and leave the "into" as lowercase. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Men in Black" sources seem to predominantly use "Men in Black". You seem to confuse "stylised" with "styled"; they are quite different. You use "need" freely; can you justify it? What are the consequences of ignoring your "need"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with having "into" in lowercase form per WP:CAPS. There's no reason to shun this approach. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to shun it is because its not how the title appears. And I've never seen a film with 'of' being written as 'Of'. And with the film "He's Not Just That Into You", the title on Wikipedia looks really awkward because of the stupid CAPS. Written as "He's Just Not That into You", which looks really awkward. I find it funny how certain editors earlier on, refused to accept websites for a source for the title and called it unreliable, even though for Wikipedia are 'reliable sources'. There are little accepts on Wikipedia occasionally, and this should be one of them. Charlr6 (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines are clear on the matter. Not personally liking the way it looks isn't a compelling reason. You would need to discuss your qualms on the guidelines' talk page. EDIT: I would also argue that the guidelines' example "To Be or Not to Be" is similar to this in how issue might be taken with a mix of uppercase and lowercase, further reinforcing this article's current naming. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for this being an exception, you have to show that it is one (apart from purely personal aesthetic reasons). As for keeping it as-is, it's the same reason why we use "Star Trek" rather than "STAR TREK" or "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" rather than "STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE". DonQuixote (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same. ALLCAPS is a font choice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal reasons? Every article even says it with the capital 'i'. And everyone knows we wouldn't have full capitals for an entire title. Even I would be against that. Its different. Charlr6 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"[T]he title on Wikipedia looks really awkward because of the stupid CAPS." That's a personal reason.
And the reason we do "into" is the same reason we don't do full caps...go to WT:CAPS for that stuff. For "this article title is an exception", that pertains to this article so that can be discussed here. Please provide a reliable source that verifies that this article title should be an exception. DonQuixote (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not allowed to have an opinion? Whats the point of having a consensus when it will all be personal for the specific person in the end.
A reliable source why this would be an exception? Where would there be an article called "Star Trek Into Darkness should be the title on Wikipedia because of this..."? Look at movies with "of" and "the" and "or" in the title, then look at the word "into", into is, well kind of more of a statement than the other three. Why would darkness need to have a capital 'D' anyway? Just because CAPS says that any movie with a word under like 4 letters should be lower case or whatever? And don't get how the title "He's Just Not That into You" has only one word with lower case, what makes 'just' different to 'into'? But why would 'Darkness' have to have a capital D? And there isn't going to be an article with information about why the title on Wikipedia should be the exception, infact, as every other site calls it "Star Trek Into Darkness", why should we ignore it? Just because of stupid rules on Wikipedia, and there have been a few times I've seen contradicting rules. There are too many rules for people to keep track of and pay full attention too. Charlr6 (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can have whatever opinion you like, but that doesn't make a good argument. That's what reliable sources are for. You need to show that this is a exception because just saying that it should be isn't going to get other people to come around to your POV. To quote WP:Verifiability: "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors."
As for ignoring sites that use "Into", we also ignore sites that print the title in all caps. That's just how WP:CAPS works. DonQuixote (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to fit the bill. It seems that "into" is used as a preposition in this title. If I am reading WP:CAPS correctly, prepositions less than 5 letters should not be capitalized. So it should stay as "into" per the guidelines.--JOJ Hutton 01:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well 'from' is a preposition. But From Russia With Love is still spelt with a capital F. Yes its the start of the name but its less than 5 letters and also a preposition. Just because it might be stylised with the capital F doesn't mean we would have to follow that as well. Just like we aren't following the title of this film with the capital 'i'. Charlr6 (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, starting of a sentence is the only exception to the rule. Did you read the guideline? ....unless they begin or end a title or subtitle. Hope that helps.--JOJ Hutton 01:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As written, the title is nonsense. Attempts to understand the preposition lead to one conclusion: there is an implied colon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the film is released with a colon, then perhaps the word should be capitalized. But many sources make a special mention that this film will not have a colon, so how can one conclude that there is an implied colon, when sources actually say different?JOJ Hutton 02:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources have the title with a capital 'I', even Simon Pegg mentioned it that way, and even mentioned the 'verb'. So how can Wikipedia simply put its own rules onto the title, when sources actually say different? Charlr6 (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For that, discuss at WT:CAPS. Also see WP:MOS and The Chicago Manual of Style. DonQuixote (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You really do just want us to discuss there don't you? I know that no one there will probably even listen, and you might even join in to be against it there. And the Chicago Manual of Style at the end of the day is just a book where people wrote down what they think is best. Charlr6 (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One concludes that there is an implied colon when attempting to decipher meaning from the title. Without a colon, it says that stars trek into darkness. Alternatively, it could be a reference to the Star Trek franchise, and where it is going, but I thank that unlikely. The sources say there is no colon, but they don't say anything on the implication of one. Evidence for an implied colon is the common colon used in previous movies, the reticence to use colons on movie titles, and the explicit capitalisation of Into despite otherwise well accepted rules of title case. To use a lowercase i is to perform a small correction on their poor English, but I think it goes in the wrong direction. I would prefer to use their title exactly, and maybe use scare quotes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without a colon it means "Space Journey into Darkness". DonQuixote (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. It does. And what would "Star Trek Generations" be? "Space Journey Generations", followed by "Space Journey First Contact", "Space Journey Insurrectoin, "Space Journey Nemesis". A better way for the title, would be "Star Trekking Into Darkness", as that makes more sense. I'm not saying we should change that though, but without a colon, it would be "Space Journey into Darkness". Charlr6 (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are irrelevant since they use colons. DonQuixote (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just in Wikipedia. Outside of wikipedia and on the DVDs I have of them, and even when the title appears in the opening credits there isn't any colon. Charlr6 (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, CAPS doesn't actually say "the new Star Trek film should be titled like this", and until it does, it doesn't 'explicitly' say anything. And the title everyone was happy to go for for a couple of weeks was "Star Trek Into Darkness", and soon before the page moved then CAPS was mentioned. And you know you saying 'please could we stop this now' is kind of annoying to me as well. I could say "Please, can you all stop listening to rules and realising that this is an exception and we are the only website from what I've seen to have 'into' with a lower case 'i'". Choosing to not believe what you see with your own eyes then trusting what your parents (which would be Wikipedia) to be true, even though you know, because other websites have it as a capital 'i', to be true. But if you lot are too ignorant to see what sources say, then so be it. One editor on another page, I linked him to something on Wikipedia and he said "wikipedia isn't reliable", which it isn't because of those contradicting rules I've seen. Too many rules for people to use every one.
But, if you want to live with the lower case 'i', even though reliable sources don't have it that way, then so be it. Charlr6 (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the guidelines. The manual of style covers the topic also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just read what you see with your own eyes on reliable sources and what even Simon Pegg tweeted about. But I'm done, I hardly see the movie title, when it appears on screen saying "Star Trek into Darkness". Charlr6 (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • TITLE IS NOT CORRECT. Sorry but this is quite silly. WP:CAPS does not apply here (because a motion picture is a proper noun), and WP:NCF is a guideline NOT a bright-line rule. Here we invoke common sense. There is PLENTY of precedent for deviation from this guideline, (e.g., titles such as Journey Into Light, Journey Into Life: The World of the Unborn, Journey Through the Night, and MANY more). Here common sense dictates that since EVERY SINGLE reliable source available refers to "Star Trek Into Darkness", then so too should Wikipedia since Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reliable sources, there shouldn't even be a debate here. Change the title.   Thorncrag  14:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness&oldid=514653337"