Talk:Star Trek Generations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Isn't it "Star Trek: Generations" and not "Star Trek Generations"? Byelf2007 (talk) 5 May 2012

Okay okay, so the article says it doesn't have a colon but the title says it has a colon. Which is it? Mainerd (talk) 13 September 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This article should be titled "Star Trek Generations". This is how it appears on the official website. Note that it is the first movie that appears on the website without a colon. The preceding movie is called "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country", i.e. WITH colon; earlier movies all have a colon. Note also that all movies AFTER this movie appear without colon. This move from using to not using a colon should be reflected in Wikipedia. (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone apparently moved it back a year ago and I never noticed. I've reverted it back to the proper (no colon) title. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the title should be reverted to have a colon. Let's please not have Into Darkness syndrome. All of the other films for TNG have a colon, and it is highly inconsistent that this film be without one. I saw what was referred to in the above argument pertaining to the Star Trek website, and I can't help but cringe. Star Trek: Generations has been marketed with a colon for years. Important: Seeing as every single other Star Trek aside from Star Trek Into Darkness has been placed with a colon on Wikipedia, and throughout the web, this is just crazy inconsistent. There are also inconsistencies on this very page, too. The Star Trek website is just rewriting history. A colon is how it should be, and is how it has always been. ~WB, July 03, 2013 Wesbrooks (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The article reflects the title as it is on the official Star Trek website: On the film's one sheet poster there is no colon in the title either: There is no colon in the title. The film is "Star Trek Generations" and the article should reflect that. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that it is a clear-cut case that there is no colon in the title. WP:TITLE says, "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." Consequentially, it is not a criterion to stick to the primary source. We have changed other film titles to fit Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In this case, looking at secondary sources referring to this film in Google Books, News, and Scholar, there exist both Star Trek Generations and Star Trek: Generations. In short, both are viable options here. However, one can argue that the spirit of WP:RETAIN and WP:DATERET applies here, that making a change is inconsequential. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd further add that the title can be read as the phrase "'Star Trek'(Adj.) Generations" (or "Generations of the type being 'Star Trek'"), thus it is not that the colon is indispensable for the title and whomever dropped it was trying to be cool. (Just as with "Star Trek Into Darkness" can be read "'Star Trek'(v) Into Darkness", the colon not mandatory). The colon would be necessary if there was a number there, or if it was a split sentence (like Star Trek: First Contact), but that's not necessarily the case here. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
As the saying goes 'you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts'. And the fact is there is no colon in the title. 'Star Trek Generations' the name of the film. Just because some secondary sources got the name wrong and inserted a colon where is doesn't belong, doesn't mean that their error should be validated here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that there is a objectively right answer here. Film titles will be styled certain ways that do not fit the Manual of Style. "Generations" has been treated as a subtitle by both primary and secondary sources; it was the filmmakers' choice to leave out the colon. It does not mean we are beholden to do the same. Seven (film) and Alien 3 are MOS examples of stylized titles. Here, I would say the matter is less crucial, but I would not oppose delineating the title and subtitle for this encyclopedia's purposes. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it bears repeating that 'you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts'. Film titles are copyrighted and registered properties. Their title is their title, their legal title. That is a fact. And this is not a stylized title like Seven (film) or Alien 3 so your point is irrelevant. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
You could be more considerate in your responses. "Generations" has been treated as a subtitle, so it is a minor style issue to leave out the colon. Similar rationales are applied to how film titles are capitalized; the MOS overrules the stylized capitalization if reliable sources have done this. Sssssss and They Call Me Mister Tibbs! are examples of this; for the latter, "Mister" is fully capitalized or underlined compared to the other words. A line break-related example would be Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, which I believe does not use the dash in advertising (just line breaks), but "Ghost Protocol" is treated as a subtitle and rendered as such. So I disagree that reliable sources are erroneous here in inserting a colon; it is just a valid alternative way to write the title. This and this are a couple of key examples that do this. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
"Generations" may have been treated mistakenly as a subtitle by some, but that doesn't mean we have to legitimize their error. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn" is sometimes refered to at TWOK, it is just a short hand. Same is true other films like "Independence Day", often refered to as ID4. That doesn't mean the title of the articles on those films is changed to reflect the short hand reference. But the titles of other films are irrelevant. "Star Trek Generations" is the official title of this film, with no colon. It is what the official website calls it. It the title the film is copyrighted under. And while some secondary source may erroneously insert a colon, many others do not. Such as: SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Erik, this sort of seems like a needless rehashing of the Into Darkness debacle. The official source uses Generations without a colon; so do many other official sources. Likewise many perfectly reputable and reliable sources use a colon. But it seems best to defer to the styling that the actual owners of the property use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2014[edit]

Star Trek GenerationsStar Trek: Generations – There is a colon between "Star Trek" and "Generations". AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Oppose No, there isn't a colon between Star Trek and Generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

See the above discussion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


Prototype Costume[edit]

Completly useless for Wiki purposes (unless anyone thinks we can get Wikimedia to donate $7,500 to a "research" project), but the prototype Captain Picard updated uniform for Generations has made its way onto ebay here. Miyagawa (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Haha, don't think I'd ever seen a real physical sample, just the Blackman sketches. Cool. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:16, 20 September 2016

Requested move 28 September 2016[edit]

The following is a closed 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: Not moved, WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek GenerationsStar Trek: Generations – The title of the film Star Trek: Generations not Star Trek Generations — it instead appears to be an original research addition for some reason other than actual title accuracy. On more than one occasion now, an anonymous IP has gone around Wikipedia actively breaking links to this article by prematurely rewording them to the correct title despite the fact that it makes them redlinks, so I'm submitting this for discussion on their behalf since they likely don't know how to do it themselves — but if this is going to keep happening, then the title needs to be fixed. (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There's two sections on this page that explain why it is at the colon-less version. Also, if the editors linking to Star Trek: Generations, that redirects to here, so nothing should be broken. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. I've always read this title of the film like a play on words, sort of like Into Darkness. Also, it's worth noting that this move request rationale likely does not actually describe a real linking problem. See this at Step Up Revolution from a bit ago, the move request summary is cut and pasted from there with no alterations outside of the film's title. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The film's title doesn't and never had a colon. There is no colon on the film's one sheet and the official Star Trek website lists the film's title without a colon. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the official and screen name of the film contains no colon. As an encyclopedia we should reflect the reality of named works of art. Randy Kryn 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's no colon in the title. It is already at the correct location. Miyagawa (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've gone around and reverted all those extra colons. Miyagawa (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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