Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness

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

Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 31, 2009 Articles for deletion Redirected
November 24, 2011 Articles for deletion Kept
This talk page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Now that the furor has died down perhaps the reception section can be revisited[edit]

The reviews launch "bounce" was as well stage-managed and manufactured as might be expected but the film's generally underwhelmed audiences. Now that the PR people are not watching Wiki, perhaps this section can be revisited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really a need to, as I see it. Critical reception didn't change from those weeks because more time has passed, and that's what the article is reflecting. Mainstream reviewers had more positives to say about the film than negatives, and that's reflected here. General blogosphere fan reaction over a year later doesn't warrant revisiting those reviews unless they made some kind of significant impact recently. I can only assume from your comments that you think Wikipedia is easily swayed (and even monitored) by the movie studios putting the film out. I can assure you such an attempt would be a futile one. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

--You're asserting that multi-million dollar studios have no interest in gaming Wikipedia or skill at it. One does not need to be cynical to see that such a blanket assertion as the immediately preceding is a bit boastful. :)

Let's put this another you have any reliable sources to support your own assertions with regards to Wikipedia coverage of this film? DonIago (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Remember all that nonsense about the title?[edit]

The internet (and reliably sourced media) remembered. Really, that was a lame discussion from beginning to end. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And then those sources being rejected for inclusion, not because they failed to address the question of capitalization, but because they were also discussing Wikipedia. — (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


The title is stylized this way in the advertisement for its screening on the Showcase channel. I took a screenshot of it here and vidMe at /9Yvo so should we list this as an alternate title? --Ranze (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No a screenshot is not a credible source. All it proves is that a Technician at one cable channel got the title wrong. All promotion material from Paramount use the title 'Star Trek Into Darkness'. SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree. There needs to be more than a single screen shot on some random cable station to invoke a change to the title. All other sources write it the way that the Wp title writes it.--JOJ Hutton 14:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@SonOfThornhill: the use of a title on a cable network broadcasting the movie does at least prove that this title is also used to refer to the film. "Wrong" or not, it should be aliased due to that. It's not like it's being presented as the primary title or anything, just that the introduction of "the" into the title (along with a colon) is significant to observe.

@Jojhutton: this is not an isolated case, others have referred to the film similarly, I'll cite some below for consideration.

Brown, Scott (23 August 2015). "Video: First look at Vancouver-filmed Star Trek Beyond". Vancouver Sun. Abrams, who also directed 2013's Star Trek Into The Darkness, handed Star Trek Beyond off to Lin after he signed on to produce and direct the new Star Wars films 

So we have a 2015 newspaper, the 2016 ads by Showcase (Canadian TV channel)...

"Star Trek Into The Darkness Framed Movie Poster". Star Trek Into The Darkness: A 2013 Movie released by Paramount Pictures 

The poster lacks 'the' so I understand the 'this is a mistake' approach but if enough mistakes happen it's still notable to address...

Reese, Aisha. "'Star Trek: Beyond' Spoilers: What We Know So Far About The Movie". Star Trek Beyond is the third entry in the rebooted sci-fi franchise, which already includes Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek: Into the Darkness (2013) 

Also indicates use in a television episode: "Star Trek Into the Darkness Red Carpet Interview with Host Yi Tian" at the Internet Movie Database

It's a consistent enough reference to the film to be noteworthy in SOME capacity, a lot of people think of the film as 'into the darkness' and it's been used in distribution. Ranze (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because some third party sources get the title wrong doesn't mean it should be justified by noting it here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

“Sequel” section unnecessary[edit]

Editor wthdrew opposition and removed the disputed section. Betty Logan (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Is there any reason to keep the “Sequel” section about the formerly upcoming sequel to this sequel? It doesn’t seem directly related to this subject beyond being in the same series. — (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Because we don't delete whole sections because one person thinks it is unnecessary. We don't censor information, we provide it. Is there a good reason to censor this information? SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
As there's a series article and this is not the only sequel in a franchise, it does seem like it doesn't belong in this article beyond a mention. We don't have sequel sections on any of the FA film articles because it's needlessly duplicative. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
That is at least valid reason, not just one unregistered user deleting a whole section based solely on their opinion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I did say, It doesn’t seem directly related to this subject beyond being in the same series. That’s not an IDONTLIKEIT reason. Please don’t dismiss a valid opinion merely based on its source. Pretty sure we have project pages discouraging that. — (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, see WP:ONUS. We don’t restore material just because one person thought it was unnecessary and removed it. We explain how it’s necessary, and then restore it. — (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:ONUS doesn't apply. Whole sections are not deleted based on one unregistered users opinion. David gave a valid reason for the deletion, you didn't. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
How is “not directly related to the subject” not a valid reason? How does ONUS not apply when I’m clearly disputing this content? And what does my registration status have to do with anything, besides being an ad hominem distraction?
Anyway, if you agree that it doesn’t belong, why is there even an argument? — (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You deleted a long standing section in the article, so WP:ONUS doesn't apply. That threshold had already been reached long ago when it was originally included. David gave a valid reason for deleting the section, you didn't. And unregistered editors are often disruptive and have vandalized articles. If you want credibility to make edits, I suggest you register. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I’m aware you don’t think I gave a valid reason. That’s why I asked how the reason I gave was invalid. And please drop the ad hominem line of reasoning rather than doubling down on it.
As for the “long ago” consensus, the section is disputed now, so do we have consensus to include it now or not? — (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Only disputed by an unregistered editor. Thus, no consensus exists to delete the section. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
As there's a series article and this is not the only sequel in a franchise, it does seem like it doesn't belong in this article beyond a mention (emphasis added). No, it is not only disputed by me. And I’ll ask you again to stop undermining your point with ad hominem arguments. — (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Yet David never said to definitely delete it. Just that it doesn't "seem to belong". So at this point there is only one unregistered editor who wants it deleted. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
What other interpretation is there? I’m trying to assume good faith, but you sound like you’re just nitpicking. — (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you think this is worth an RFC? I’m not sure where else we can go from here. But in the meantime, @David Fuchs: Do you agree with the removal? — (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
How about this? Become a registered user and then come back here and make a rational argument for the section's removal and propose a proper revision. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no requirement for an IP to register in order to participate here. Stop suggesting this. --NeilN talk to me 15:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you don’t believe unregistered users should be allowed to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest that, for the time being, you find a project that does not allow them to. Wikipedia does. And I’m still waiting for you to address the argument I gave in my first post, or to explain how it was not valid and rational. — (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
No I'm suggesting that you would have more credibility if you did register. I'm also suggesting that you make a proper proposal for the deletion and post a suggested revision. Just stating your opinion that you don't think it belongs is not good enough. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Personal credibility shouldn’t factor into it. If the argument would be good enough coming from an editor whose name you’ve seen every day for the past ten years, it should be good enough to stand on its own merits regardless of who makes it. Does the identity of the proponent really bias you so heavily? — (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Instead of wasting time arguing about this, why don't you spend your time crafting a better argument to remove the section and proposing a proper revision. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My argument: The contents of the section are not relevant to this subject, and all three of us here have agreed that this is a valid concern. My proposal: Remove the non-relevant section (which actually should have been done as soon as Star Trek Beyond was created, if not sooner). Now can you directly address what I’ve been suggesting this whole time, now that I’ve reiterated it for you? Do you have any actual objections—to the argument? — (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

How is the film's sequel not relevant to the subject? Again your reasoning is just "I don't think it belongs". Come up with a better argument and a proposed revision. If they make sense, I support it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
If a subject has its own article, there's no need to content fork it. I'm not aware of any high-quality film article as part of a series that spends paragraphs on its following films (especially just covering pre-pro and development information, which is already in and elaborated on in the following article). It reads exactly as it is—a section started when a new film was unknown and untitled, and it extraneous at this point now that the sequel has come out. As the IP suggests, should we start an RfC? This seems like a lot of circular arguing and unnecessary hostility over a subsection. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a proper argument and have no objection to it. There is no reason for an RFC. All I wanted was a proper argument for removing an entire section beyond "I don't think it belongs". The only think left is to propose the revision and this issue can be settled. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
(Same IP user on a public computer.) Please stop misrepresenting my argument. I never said it "doesn't belong" (and I've corrected you on this before). I said it's not relevant, and you have never even tried to argue for its relevance. Also, please stop ignoring my proposed revision. If you see a problem with removing the section, which contains old information that is better given elsewhere, then point it out so that we can address it, or propose your own remedy. — (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Not misrepresenting your argument but that is all it really boils down to. How is the film's sequel not relevant? David gave made a valid argument for removing the section. All that is need it a proper revision to the article to be proposed. I'm fine with leaving the section as is. But am ok with it being deleted and replaced with something else. I'm just waiting for that something else to be proposed. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
David explained how it’s not relevant, you mean. I didn’t explain that because I thought it would have been obvious at a glance. Also, the lack of any explanation for how it is relevant, the fact that the only defense of it was simple negation, seems to indicate that it isn’t relevant. Anyway, as I’ve said before, I’ll suggest something to replace it with as soon as you explain why it needs to be replaced with anything. Or you could suggest something yourself. Or we could simply remove it, if there’s no reason to do otherwise (and there doesn’t seem to be one).
So if there’s nothing else, we can remove the disputed content now, yes? — (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes David made the case for removing the section, not that a film's sequel is 'not relevant'. Still waiting for a proposal for the revision/replacement. Maybe if you focused on that instead of being endlessly argumentative, this issue could have been settled by now. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the IP made it reasonably clear in their last message that they would like to see the section removed, not replaced with alternate text. At least one other editor has spoken in support of their perspective, and while I've kept quiet to this point, this ping-pong match is growing tedious. To that end, I'm going to support removal of the section per David and the IP. DonIago (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree with David's argument for removing the section. I just don't think the film's sequel should be completely ignored in the article and would like to see a proposal from the IP for a replacement. I don't think that is too much to ask. And as I said before, had the IP focused on that instead of just being argumentative, this issue could have been settled by now. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I made an effort to avoid bringing up editor conduct in my prior post; at this point all I'll say is that it takes two people to have an argument. David noted that a number of FA-quality articles have no sequel section, so my inclination at this point is to support removing it wholesale. Might I suggest that if you feel there should be some discussion of it, that you provide a starting point? DonIago (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not the one advocating for the removal of the section. Based on David's argument, I don't have an objection to it. But I don't think that the film's sequel is not relevant and should be completely ignored. Asking those who are asking for the section to be removed provide a simple revision that at least mentions the sequel is not unreasonable. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
But it's also not unreasonable to ask that you come up with some ideas as well (I'd emphasize 'ideas' here). Or in other words, that you work with us to come up with text rather than forcing the matter onto other people...especially given that the other people have said that they don't think text is necessary. As the sole party arguing that some text should be retained thus far, surely you have some ideas for what that might be? It doesn't seem reasonable, to me, to argue that text should be in the article while not expressing any opinion as to the specifics. DonIago (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn’t ignore the sequel. It’s mentioned (and linked) right in the lead: A sequel, Star Trek Beyond, was released on July 22, 2016. What more is necessary here? — (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Link doesn't work but I checked the article and the sequel is mentioned. So the section can be removed. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
…You mean you put up all that resistance for no reason and you never even checked the article? And what do you mean the link doesn’t work? — (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
SonOfThornhill was wrong to try to rub your nose in what he perceived as your mistakes even as he acknowledged that others were making good points in favor of your position, but now you're making a similar mistake by rubbing his nose in this. Wikipedia is not a battlegound. Your position prevailed, accept it in good grace and move on. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I’m not, or at least not intentionally; I just don’t comprehend where he was coming from. — (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I as an uninvolved editor took it that way, so I have little doubt SonOfThornhill would, so consider yourself advised that it was not a helpful comment and move on. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I’m not sure how else I should have put it. But thanks for the feedback! — (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
You didn't need to put it any other way. He came around and removed the section himself, your objective was achieved, accusing him of "putting up all that resistance for no reason" and mocking him for "not even checking the article" after the fact served no purpose. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
There was no mockery there. He said he only recently checked the article and noticed the mention (unless I misunderstood, which is all the more reason to ask). I’m genuinely baffled, is all, because to me it seems like a necessary first step to discussion. If any derision could be read from it, I sincerely apologize. Just looking for an explanation, but if he chooses not to give one, that’s fine too. — (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Does the term "sealioning" ring a bell? Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal of sequel section - The sequel has its own article, and mentioning the sequel in the lead (as it already is) should be more than sufficient. I don't seen other articles on individual films in a franchise that have a "sequel" section devoted to the film that immediately follows them. MOS:FILM has no provision for a "sequel" section, the only time it addresses sequels, it instructs to mention them in succeeding paragraphs in the lead section, so I believe we are covered. I also want to say I really did not like seeing an IP having to suffer repeated pointed comments about his unregistered status, and suggesting that registration was a partial requirement for his position being taken seriously. Wikipedia policy explicitly states that registration is not a requirement for participation, and we comment on content, not the contributor. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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