Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 10

xkcd Mention

Just to make everyone aware, and for the sake of self-referential humor, there is now an xkcd comic poking fun at the whole discussion above and this talk page in general: http://xkcd.com/1167/ I move to debate the implications of this comic on the outcome of the page. :) 24.196.27.208 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean that it got an "Xkcd Mention". --70.64.172.216 (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you mean that it got an xkcd contempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.115.215 (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear heaven. What hath God wrought? 24.196.27.208 (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
This is truly amazing, but what I would really like to see is for someone to get some actors together to do a dramatic reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.219.5 (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Good stuff guys! I wonder if any of the people in the debate truly understand how little anyone outside of their little discussion group gives a damn about the outcome?...or will ever notice which way it's done? If only this collossal amount of energy could somehow be diverted into something useful...like maybe collecting all of human knowledge and publishing it for the world to read? Oh well...it could be worse - check out the years of wrangling over "Sega Genesis" versus "Sega Mega Drive". SteveBaker (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The "Canada" vs "Dominion of Canada" was a pretty awful one too.96.49.132.52 (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to make the page semi-protected to deal with the huge influx of traffic that's sure to result from the xkcd mention. WiiWillieWiki 05:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Getting in before semi-protection kicks in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.54.79 (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to avoid confusion, from the xkcd FAQ: "The preferred form is "xkcd", all lower-case. In formal contexts where a lowercase word shouldn't start a sentence, "XKCD" is an okay alternative. "Xkcd" is frowned upon." ;) EvilHom3r (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an example of [synthesis]. It has never been clearly stated that these guidelines are applicable when followed by the word 'mention'. If we are to create a separate article for this mention it should follow Wikipedia's own guidelines, meaning the title of the page should clearly be "Xkcd Mention". 71.56.208.126 (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I, for one, think it should be ~*~XkCd MeNtI0n~*~. Mtijn (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
In light of the comic, perhaps the perfect compromise is to move the talk page to Star Trek into Blinding Light.98.116.119.53 (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
That won't do at all. If we move it, it should be moved to Star Trek lnto Blinding Light.76.102.193.27 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no personal opinion on the move itself, but can see the humor in the situation. If it is allowable, I will produce a dramatic adaptation of this article. Hopefully within a reasonable amount of time, I can get a line-through done will actors IRL. This is a big moment in Wikipedia history. It needs to live on.Mordvark (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It was also xkcd that made me aware of this discussion. And it shouldn't be "Xkcd" as said above, as the website clearly states "xkcd" all lower case. The title of something is what the creator titles it. The movie title is what the movie creators named it, which is clearly Star Trek Into Darkness. The rules for grammar simply do not apply in this situation. They are simply the suggested, standardized way to do things. It could be StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs if that is what the creators wanted to name it. Dragonfiremalus (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I swear though, I had to stop myself from capitalizing the "x" in the section title. I got the same feeling of discomfort beginning the a title with a lowercase letter that I'm sure everybody got when they saw a single preposition lower-cased in an otherwise all-uppercase title. I guess that means I'm in the "Support" camp. 24.196.27.208 (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's see if we can a 40,000 word discussion (read: argument) going over whether it should be xkcd, XKCD, or Xkcd. Dwees (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone comes from xkcd and wants to contribute, please first see this summary to quickly see what’s been discussed already. Thank you. —Frungi (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
If xkcd can be all lowercase on Wikipedia, why can't "Into" be capitalized? 2605:6000:6481:2300:6D6B:460:ACFC:C25D (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
See the arguments against it here. —Frungi (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I've read those. I'm just saying that if we are accepting the styling of xkcd's creator, why can't we accept the styling of the movie's creators. 2605:6000:6481:2300:6D6B:460:ACFC:C25D (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear heaven. You do realize now that they are just going to rename the page to "Xkcd," right? (http://xkcd.com/651/) -24.196.27.208 (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm surpised no one has noted yet that xkcd has the title as "Star Trek into Darkness" (108.214.97.159 talk) 09:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
And there’s our reliable source. Darn. —Frungi (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, it's great to see other people reading xkcd. Secondly, it's great the article's been protected for now. Thirdly, let's all hunker down for the onslaught of vandals that will surely appear. Finally, I'd like to propose Frungi's summary page is linked to at the top of this talk page to help streamline unnecessary extra debate. Frungi, it may be worth you edit protecting your page for now (if you haven't already). drewmunn (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Heh, I honestly doubt that vandals coming here would pay any attention to it. But I will if necessary, and thanks for the suggestion. And I’m obviously somewhat biased, but I support linking it. —Frungi (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
If ever a talk page deserved to be vandalised, it is this one. Good grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.22.138 (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

We all know Randall does this just to screw us over... Accelerometer T / C 07:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Any of you fine folks hear of this l'il thing called editor retention? Some mighty smart people, they're saying it's important or some such.

Or maybe even a li'le thing. Are you seriously commenting on a spergy grammar talk page?

Maybe they's even right about that. So let's say that they are...

Instead of semi-protecting and vandalhunting everyone who comes by here with a shotgun... how about actually giving them a welcome message, telling 'em howdy, and ask 'em to help with some of the more important work goin' on. There'd be some mighty big smiles all round if all y'all could pull that off! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC) On the other hand, if the xkcd comic is accurate, why am I trying to get people to exhibit any kind of sane behaviour here? ;-)

We're looking after the current article setup that's been agreed by consensus (or lack of) for the time being. We don't want to seem unwelcoming, but it's a sad fact that it was protected because vandalism of the subject had already begun. Hopefully things will ease off in the near future, and we'll have gained some useful and productive support from users who can bring a breath of fresh air to the page. drewmunn (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, just to be sure I've got this right... I just said "this behaviour is net. harmful to wikipedia" , your reply (in short) is "this is the procedure, we're doing it this way anyway". And then you say "hopefully things will ease off later and we'll have gained some productive support"... from people who you'd just said should be blocked.
I'm just checking here. Did I miss anything? ;-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Oh wait, "we're looking at the current article setup that's been agreed by consensus" -> um WP:CCC wants a word with you.
Sounds like fun! We could divert all the users that are going to come to actually improve the xkcd or the Star Trek articles, than join in here. On another note, I'm leaving Randal a note to look into the Burma/Myanmar controversy whenever he can. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
That's the spirit! If it isn't fun, why else would we be wasting our time here? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to inform everyone, I have taken the matter to Jimbo Almighty here. With luck, he might be able to dictate a solution to decide consensus on such matters. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
<old_geezer>I keep telling people that the point of CONsensus is to try to CONverge on a solution. Old fashioned, they call me. Too idealistic. HA... Get off my lawn!</old_geezer> :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is really a mess. Maybe you guys should use your energy to cure cancer or something. DoguCarrington (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was sort of on that career path, twice. Wikipedia distracted me both times. (If you don't believe me, try to explain some of the odd entries in my block log O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
And I am now tempted to read this stuff instead of doing my studies. I hope no one of you ever tries to learn German. Capitalization is slighty more complicated and people might get killed. DoguCarrington (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
While not continuing research on solar cells, I'd like to take the time to point you to another discussion: H0 scale should be with the number 0, instead of the letter O. (http://xkcd.com/878/) 131.174.139.183 (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dogu, well, I don't think we would have such a debate in German... not about capitalization, at least. I have seen german wiki debates that reached a level of sophistication like this one, though. :D --Enyavar (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This comic should be mentioned in the article. It meets the criteria of at least 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Xkcd_in_popular_culture as the subject (this talk page) has acknowledged the comic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkcdreader (talkcontribs)

Agreed Colt .55 (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Not to say it shouldn't be mentioned in there, but the article is not about its talk page. —Frungi (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
No. The comic is a reference to Wikipedia, not to the film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it should be mentioned in the article. As of yet, the article has been completely shielded from this debate, with only a hidden comment and a usually written as statement betraying the uproar back here. Unless other media outlets get hold of this, and a naming controversy grows from it, it's not notable to the article content. The subject (the talk page) has acknowledged the existence of the xkcd reference, and it's noted here. However, Randall is not discussing the article, nor have his actions had any effect on the film. drewmunn talk 11:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see what it has to do with the film itself. If it's not really about the film, then it shouldn't be in the article. DillonLarson (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. This is only relevant to the article if you actually adopt the naming convention "StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs". Electiontechnology (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
And Randall unfairly characterizes this as an "edit war". What's up with that? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It's his comic, he can do what he wants. If you like you can contribute to the strip's talk page. NE Ent 13:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't be mentioned in the article, but there is room for an "In Pop Culture" section on this talk page... Marsman57 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
???? This is a talk page! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It's already mentioned on this talk page in the header section. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Imagine a world where all the effort that went into this talk were redistributed elsewhere. Society would advance so quickly. 90.245.2.198 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Talking is far easier than anything productive. Locoluis (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this talk page needs a wikipedia article about this talk page. With an "in popular culture" section 99.226.191.43 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There's already an article for "notable" Wikipedia articles. See WP:LAME#Star Trek into Darkness :P 62.44.228.229 (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Guys. Not counting my comment, this section alone contains 1890 words about a comic about how many words there are in a debate about the capitalisation versus the non-capitalisation of the letter "i". I'm not sure if that's meta or just ridiculous. :P -- Chris (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No, not meta, just simple ridiculous. BTW, not interested in reading 100k of silliness- has anyone simply phoned up Paramount to ask if the "into" is capitalized? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
That would be original research...HJED (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you nerds are at it again. You all have digressed back into exactly what Randall Munroe was making fun of in the first place. Congratulations on failing this hard. 65.129.52.158 (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not bad: [1] :D --Gidoca (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, well... how exactly did Munroe find out about this page? 74.101.188.105 (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Guy who does not sign up for things

Wow... you guys truly descended into an incredible self-parody here. Never watched the show but I always thought 'Trek' fans were intellectual and progressive. Obviously not. I won't be surprised if what you've done here becomes a popular urban legend.--131.111.248.243 (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

{{Requested move/dated|Star Trek: Into Darkness}}

Star Trek into DarknessStar Trek: Into Darkness – Facts:

  1. "Into Darkness" is a subtitle. It is not some sort of phrase meant to be interpreted in conjunction with "Star Trek". (Many good arguments have been made here, including "subtitles often appear below the title in a less prominent typeface or following the title after a colon" (Subtitle (titling)) and a dose of common sense.) Capitalizing the title as Star Trek into Darkness is ungrammatical and honestly one of the most egregious things I've ever seen.
  2. There is an established precedent: Star Trek Nemesis (notice the lack of colon) is another such film (in the same series!) with such an "open subtitle". However, it is treated here on Wikipedia as Star Trek: Nemesis (notice the colon).
  3. The most logical thing to do (assuming that we are not simply to use the correct title, which is Star Trek Into Darkness) is to follow the common sense in (1) and the Wikipedia precedent in (2) and rename this article Star Trek: Into Darkness (notice the colon and capitalization).

DillonLarson (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: Though I agree that it’s a subtitle and that this would be the most encyclopedic title, I’m not aware of a reliable source that says it’s a subtitle. —Frungi (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    Also, unless something’s changed since the last time I searched, WP’s MOS is silent on the subject of subtitles. —Frungi (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was confused about something for a moment. It is correct now. DillonLarson (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • In 2009, J.J. Abrams "noted that if they make a sequel, 'it would have a subtitle instead of a number.'" (http://trekmovie.com/2009/06/04/report-from-mexico-city-star-trek-press-conference-w-pictures-video/) DillonLarson (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • An article from 2012: "'Star Trek Into Darkness' teaser trailer lives up to its subtitle." (An article The Examiner (as evidence of popular opinion/convention): /article/star-trek-into-darkness-teaser-trailer-lives-up-to-its-subtitle) DillonLarson (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Images show the two ("Star Trek" and "Into Darkness") separated into two logical groups--a title and a subtitle. (http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/7306587/startrek_large_verge_medium_landscape.jpg) DillonLarson (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      The first and third have been previously argued to be synthesis and interpretation. We need hard evidence, I think. Like that Examiner headline, but preferably on a site that isn’t blacklisted. —Frungi (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      • It is hard, I think, to find a great deal of evidence because I don't think a whole lot of "regular people" are having this debate--just my observation. I think the strongest piece of evidence is Wikipedia's treatment of Star Trek Nemesis as Star Trek: Nemesis. That tells me that this debate has probably already been solved by those who came before us. (And, more importantly, I think that that solution is the right one.) DillonLarson (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
        Agreed, but there’s also the argument (see here) that precedent doesn’t apply because the franchise was just rebooted. I think it’s still more likely than not to follow that precedent, but this argument has happened. —Frungi (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
        Please note that this film is not in the same series as Nemesis, as the franchise was rebooted with the last film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
        Same as my response below: the idea that a reboot constitutes a new series is an idea of your own creation and is not supported by any evidence I know of or by the present content and its organization here on Wikipedia. DillonLarson (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
        By titling the previous film simply Star Trek (without number or subtitle), any perceived precedents go out of the window. It's WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS to affirm that "into darkness" is a subtitle and should be preceded with a colon. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
        This "it's a new series, all precedent is invalid" position looks more like OR or SYNTH to me. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
        Exactly! DillonLarson (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
        If anything is WP:SYNTHESIS, I would have to say it is the idea that a reboot must be treated as a new series when the articles of this encyclopedia say otherwise. DillonLarson (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
        I'm not the one making the assumption, so there's no OR or synthesis on my part as I'm taking the title at its face value. But by assuming a subtitle, and assuming a colon, based on a supposed precedent, someone could be accused of this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
What are you smoking, Rob? The film adheres to Star Trek canon as confirmed by Abrams, the writers and as evidenced by the inclusion of Spock Prime from the original timeline. It is NOT a reboot in the way that, say, Casino Royale, The Incredible Hulk or The Amazing Spider-Man are. Nsign (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Oooh... Incredible Hulk? Bad example to choose there, I think. I'd say that Incredible Hulk is the most similar to Star Trek however, as it's partial-reboot-partial-canon. drewmunn talk 10:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The point is that to assume a colon (especially when few sources use one) based on supposed precedent of films made prior to a reboot is WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
There was no reboot - see below. Nsign (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose / Postpone. Nobody here wants to open this up again any time soon. Please thoroughly read the earlier move request, where your suggestion was discussed and declined. drewmunn (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I disagree that "opening this up again any time soon" is the wrong course of action. The point of this encyclopedia is not to fight (see WP:BATTLEGROUND); it is to be an accurate encyclopedia (see WP:FIVEPILLARS). In an effort to WP:BEBOLD and attempt to protect the integrity of this site, I have decided to gather sources and arguments and actually take a stance about this issue, right now. I suggest we all act accordingly. DillonLarson (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    that is what we've been attempting for the last few months, but no side will give. There is no concrete evidence one way or another that can totally overrule evidence from the latter argument. The same statement (we're trying to protect Wikipedia's integrity) has been used to continue this debate long past anything that resembles useful conversation. The fact that this discussion is becoming more noticed by relatively mainstream media means that it's possible the studio will clear it up for us, but that's unlikely. Until, however, we have got some seriously killer evidence, we cannot fabricate a solution; especially as sources affiliated with the studio have explicitly said that it's one sentence. Overall, this is just a cyclic, non-progressive subject that will go on for eternity if we allow it to. We're not stunting Wikipedia's development by dropping it for a month or two, but we're saving considerable server space and protecting all of us from insanity. drewmunn (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    I was inclined to gauge consensus on the (somewhat dramatic) change from lowercase-I-no-colon to capital-I-with-colon; that's why I even stepped in here. I feel like what we have is a strong enough argument at the present time, and I felt that actually putting it all together and moving it forward as a requested move was the proper action after everyone had a chance to "discuss" earlier. But, if everyone feels that this is too soon, I understand. DillonLarson (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    I fully understand your frustration, we all want to get this resolved. However, it may be more effective if you think about letting it cool off for a bit before continuing this. We're in the middle of dealing with the fallout from the last move request, and only yesterday reached some form of compromise to tide us by. My personal suggestion would be to close this request for now, and I'm sure Frungi wouldn't mind adding your views to his summary (he's great at summarising) so we can come back to it when we've all had coffee and some time to relax. drewmunn (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I warned you all. I am a man of my convictions.... MisterShiney 07:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support because it seems highly unlikely to me that it’s not intended as a subtitle. Though I’m also not sure we should be having another move discussion this soon, nor that there’s any more consensus than there was last time. Is there a rule about that? —Frungi (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    there is a guidelines that says "Do not put more than one move request on the same article talk page", so I don't think this should be here at the moment... drewmunn (talk) 8:34 am, Today (UTC+0)
    I think that applies to active move discussions, that an article shouldn’t be RMed to two different titles at once. Not sure, though. But it probably would be best to wait at least until the last RM has been archived. —Frungi (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    My thoughts exactly. In the meantime: "Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this madness" *leaps overboard*. drewmunn (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I am not afraid of trout, and yes xkcd did bring this to my attention, and yes I have have read the talk page in its entirety. I see bits and pieces of this point covered here and there but nobody has just outright said it: every single title of every single Star Trek movie and TV series has been written in graphics with "Star Trek" on one line, no punctuation, and a subtitle on a separate line below, and all of them are written in Wikipedia as "Star Trek", a colon, and the subtitle in title case. And the only thing anyone on the opposing side has to offer against that is that in one place, the synopsis, the title is cleverly used as part of a sentence where "Star Trek" is a proper noun and "into darkness" is a prepositional phrase attached to the verb "taking" (which is not in the title), and that in such cases MoS would have "into" lowercase. This despite the director himself stating that the movie would have a subtitle with no colon (like every other Star Trek). I say turn the opposition's argument against them: let us uphold preexisting Wikipedia standards and not play into Paramount's clever marketing. Follow the convention used in every other Star Trek article, and disregard the silly marketing phrase "taking Star Trek into darkness".--Pfhorrest (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    I agree completely. DillonLarson (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    Strong Support Completely Agree with Pfhorrest. - Aalox (Say HelloMy Work) 17:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Coming here from xkcd, I would just like to mention how much I loved your opening "Not to reopen the discussion" when you reopened the discussion above. --80.219.252.141 (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that J.J. Abrams purposely left out the colon, my guess is that he intended "into darkness" to have two meanings: a subtitle and the phrase "trek into darkness". However, given that "into darkness" is written in a different font than "star trek", and given that the full title "star trek into darkness" isn't a phrase, I say that the subtitle meaning should take priority, so MOS:CT doesn't apply. Support. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 07:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I think it's quite apparent that it is meant to be a subtitle and not a phrase (though J.J. Abrams did mean for people to think of "trek into darkness", even without compromising the fact that it is a subtitle). Otherwise, if it is meant to directly be a phrase, then this is no longer a Star Trek movie, but some other film called "Star Trek into Darkness". SilverserenC 08:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Postpone at least until the last move request has been archived. —Frungi (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Talk about fanning the flames. Just as we'd kind of reached a compromise too. Has the nominator not read the previous and very recent move discussion? And the continued discussions thereafter? Far too soon to be starting this move discussion in the light of NO new information. It seems that a cartoon on a website will bring a new bunch of fanboys to the page who don't really understand Wikipedia guidelines. FFS. I'd suggest a speedy close as no consensus per WP:SNOW on this one. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    In light of comments such as this, I think it wise that we all take a moment to remember the WP:FIVEPILLARS, of which one is WP:CIVILITY. I assure you, I have read the discussions and I acted in WP:GOODFAITH in requesting this move. I suggest you take a look at the previous discussions (and/or this excellent summary--User:Frungi/Star Trek Into Darkness capitalization); I think you will find that there was no consensus or compromise about "Star Trek into Darkness → Star Trek Into Darkness". However, I am not talking about "Star Trek into Darkness → Star Trek Into Darkness"; this is not a rehash of that debate (although that debate seems to have gotten severely out of hand and may have covered a bit of similar ground). This is about "Star Trek into Darkness → Star Trek: Into Darkness", which I (and others) believe to be right for this situation and for which I (and others) have attempted to demonstrate evidence, strong past precedence, and applicable rules of Wikipedia's style. And, despite your attempts to suppress this discussion, it has been going rather well and appears to be gaining support--though it is very young, so I don't see how either of us can claim an outcome at this point. (And, really, isn't that the point of a discussion?) I am fine if you disagree, but please don't make this into something it's not. Don't try to turn a discussion into a fight. DillonLarson (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The previous and very recent discussion also suggested the possibility of a colon, but this was also not seen as an acceptable compromise. To start a new discussion so soon after the recent lengthy discussions seems to smack of being WP:POINTY and disruptive, especially in the light of no new information, and given that we had just about reached a compromise and were putting the matter to bed. Why open up an old wound at this point? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I promise you that there was and is nothing WP:POINTY about my request. (Again, please try to be WP:CALM and assume WP:GOODFAITH.) I created this request specifically because I did not see "the matter begin put to bed." If there is an agreement to be made, is there any real reason not make it here? DillonLarson (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The reason not to have the discussion so soon is that we've just been having it for the last few months, and no consensus was found after all that time. If you'd have read these discussions through, I can't see how you could have thought it a good idea to "poke the bears" just as they were getting to sleep, and then seem surprised when they bite! --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, I cannot help but sense a great deal of WP:INCIVILITY in your comments. Attempting to terminate this discussion, to be frank, makes you appear WP:POINTY. Civil discussion is a really important part of Wikipedia, and I don't see why it cannot remain. DillonLarson (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd draw your attention to the fact that I'm not the only editor that thinks that opening this discussion again so soon was ill-advised. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You needn't draw my attention anywhere. I apologize if you disagree with the position of this request, but I see no merit in framing that disagreement as a reason to throw away this discussion. Like Ed said, why not "let the debate run its course"? DillonLarson (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Perhaps this talk page could actually use some fresh input, because all the previous 'talk'-ers seem to have missed the point Pfhorrest makes: namely that Wikipedia already has a precedent for the current situation in the form of articles about previous Star Trek movies. All of these use colons and capitalization for the subtitle, even when in the promotional material the subtitle was only separated by a newline. So unless you want to start renaming articles like Star Trek: Nemesis to "Star Trek Nemesis", Star Trek: First Contact to "Star Trek First Contact" and so on, I suggest going with the suggested move. 87.212.129.14 (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no precedent as there are no previous Star Trek sequel movies in this series. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I reject the idea that there are two separate film series. Although the template at the bottom of Star Trek pages seems to suggest this, Star Trek and Star Trek (film series) (and my experience) say that there is only one series, which has been rebooted. I believe you are incorrect (according to these articles) and, furthermore, the precedent seems to be well founded. DillonLarson (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Something else to think about: Look at the infobox on Star Trek (the Films section). Doesn't the organization of the subtitles suggest a pattern? Into Darkness is listed there (with a capital I) along with all the other subtitles, which makes sense because it is a subtitle and should be formatted as such. DillonLarson (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
My point being that you cannot claim a precedent, as this is the first sequel since the reboot. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Rob and Dillon. You are clearly both frustrated. Can you both step back and let the debate run its course? Preferably before either of you get too heated and say something you'll regret? Just some friendly advice. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for those words, Ed. "Letting the debate run its course" is exactly what I believe should be allowed to happen. There's no reason we can't Keep Calm and Carry On. DillonLarson (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Even if you want to view this as a separate series, the point stands. The reason is that Wikipedia articles about other movies (i.e. also non-Star Trek) also follow the convention of replacing a newline by a colon (and a capitalization of the subtitle). 87.212.129.14 (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per MOS:CT and the official lack of a colon. I also agree with Rob Sinden on the merit (or rather lack thereof), of having this discussion yet again. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Postpone / Oppose - we shouldn't insert a colon when there is no colon used by any official sources. Yes, I'm aware of Generations, Nemesis etc but in those cases it was very clear that the title was not a sentence/phrase. In this case we're not sure if it is or if it isn't. Personally I think the compromise that was recently reached will have to be adequate for now ("usually written as Star Trek Into Darkness") although I still resolutely believe it is simply illogical stubbornness not to change it to Star Trek Into Darkness. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia has its dick in the wind with this article.
Rob Sinden - we absolutely can claim a precedent. 2009's Star Trek is not a reboot as it adheres to Trek canon. This has been clearly stated by the creators and is clear from the inclusion of Spock Prime from the original timeline. A reboot pretends all other previous iterations of a fictional world simply never happened (Casino Royale, The Amazing Spider-Man). This has got go-faster stripes but its undeniably part of the Star Trek film series. Nsign (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be contradicting yourself there. First you say it shouldn't be colon-ised, then you say there is precedent for colon-isation. I'm not about to get into a debate about whether the films exist in the same continuity, but we cannot treat the title in the same way as the films that came before the reboot, as the previous title of simply Star Trek broke the continuity of any naming system, and thus no precedent can be made. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Both are true - it shouldn't be colonised (my opinion) and there is precedent for colonisation (simply a fact). And there is no debate to be had about continuity at all - it IS the same one. And I disagree that to say that just because one single iteration of a franchise didn't use a subtitle chucks 40-odd years of precedent across 10 films and 5 series in the bin. Nsign (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree. If it were my call, I would capitalize with no colon, because that's the actual title of the film. But I also agree that the fact of Wikipedia's style precedent overrules that opinion. DillonLarson (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, WP:POINTY. You don't like the outcome of the "no consensus" discussion, so you make a suggestion that you don't agree with. It's hard to assume good faith. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You've misinterpreted that. He didn't make a suggestion he didn't agree with (and why would he?), he simply acknowledged that the MOS overrides his personal opinion. Nsign (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you :) DillonLarson (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I have. He thinks the title should be with a capitalised "i", yet presents an argument for it to include a colon, a move that he has admitted not agreeing to. This is in the shadow of continued discussion that has been going on for months with no consensus. If that isn't disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what is. I may seek admin intervention. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? Can you hear what you are saying? Am I being WP:POINTY? No. Am I "frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied"? No. Have I "discredited a rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently"? No. Am I trying to "prove a point in a local dispute"? No. I have no dispute. If there is any dispute, it should be about the tactics that have been used to attempt to end this discussion before an outcome can be reached. Discussion is a very important part of Wikipedia. There is clearly "frustration with the way" discussion "is being applied," but that does not mean that you or anyone else has the authority to shut down this community and its efforts to voice its opinions about something. Look back at WP:POINTY and read the nutshell: "When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only." Why can't we just have a discussion? What is wrong with that? DillonLarson (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead. The meaning was clear. You are assuming bad faith when the statement was what it was - an acknowledgement that a Wikipedia policy took precedence over his own personal opinion. Nsign (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I promise you that there is nothing WP:POINTY about this request. I fully support this requested move. All I mean by my comment is that if this were DillonLarsonpedia, the style rules might be different. But this isn't DillonLarsonpedia; this is Wikipedia. My request is not an attempt to make a point or disrupt anything. It is, in fact, a real effort by me to make Wikipedia better. Isn't that our job as editors? Just because you disagree with how this should be handled does not mean you have the right to accuse me, repeatedly, of acting out of anything other than WP:GOODFAITH. DillonLarson (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
"Star Trek broke the continuity of any naming system, and thus no precedent can be made."
How is this not WP:OR? DillonLarson (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Did Star Trek follow the previously-in-place continuous naming system? No. Therefore no assumption can be made that a sequel to that film should follow this previous naming system. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the part where we don't see eye-to-eye lies in the fact that Star Trek was a dramatic change for the series--call it a "reboot" or whatever you please. This leads me to think of it as an outlier from what should be expected, not the beginning of something else--certainly not a new, separate series. If you think Star Trek was not a major change for the series, then I can understand why its name seems confusing. But if you agree that it was just an outlier--a necessary transition from the old actors, characters, and stories to new ones (while retaining several old ones)--then I don't see how you can maintain that it establishes a new precedent. Furthermore, I do not feel you adequately support the argument for this new precedent. Ultimately, I find this (only this specific bit) to be matter of opinion and any conclusion drawn from it WP:OR. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. DillonLarson (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that there is precedent, there is no evidence that Abrams will utilise that precedent; it's a new era, and we're yet to see whether precedent is worth anything. Precedent doesn't mean time immemorial, and a franchise refresh doesn't mean a reboot. As I've suggested before, and others agree, look into putting this move request on hold for now. Over the last few hours, we've covered only old ground, with the exception of lengthening a new debate that isn't going far in reaching any consensus. Let the bear sleep, and he may wake up more open minded and rational (on both sides). drewmunn talk 11:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You've put in better words what I was trying to convey. And agreed, this discussion should not have been revisited just yet. I think WP:SNOW applies here - If recent history is anything to go by, there is no way we will find a consensus just yet. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether it did or not. It is part of the Star Trek series and we can look to the whole series for precedent. No one should be referring to Star Trek (2009) as a "reboot" because it simply isn't and it isn't described as one on its own wikipedia entry or by the creators. The entry for "reboot" states, "In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all established continuity in a series and start over from the beginning". Trek 2009 by any measure does not meet that definition. Batman Begins - reboot. Casino Royale - reboot. Amazing Spider Man - reboot. Star Trek - not reboot. Nsign (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Well technically, we don't know whether "Star Trek Nemesis" isn't a phrase. Like, the Nemesis of the (Star) Trek or something? On the official site of the Nemesis film they don't use a colon... The Wikipedia page does insert a colon. Should we change that? 131.211.45.47 (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
No. Its been done there because it makes sense to do it as it is obviously a subtitle. Here it isn't obvious. Let's not start farting around with other articles on the basis of guidelines under discussion here, that leads us to WP:POINTY. Nsign (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mean it should actually be changed; my question was rhetoric. I do disagree with you though, in that I think it's obviously a subtitle, just from the film poster for example. 131.211.45.47 (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it invents a colon that doesn't exist. Perhaps the nominating editor should be strapped to a table and carved open with a phaser so we can use his colon. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    Is this really acceptable here? DillonLarson (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    Please see WP:No Personal Attacks. There is no mention of phaser use. Therefore yes, perfectly acceptable. Nsign (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    Being opened up by a phaser is functionally-equivalent to a trouting for Star Trek fans. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    Wrong—no one's "inventing" a colon. That's a straw man. We're discussing inserting a colon between what's put forth as a series title and subtitle (and more broadly, whether this is the case), as is appropriate in such circumstances. Our MOS says nothing either for or against such an addition. —Frungi (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    No, we are talking about conjuring up a colon out of thin air because some editors think "into darkness" is a subtitle. I see "Star Trek into Darkness" as a single, undivided title (as do others). It is precisely why "into" should be lowercase. It is the crux of this entire debate, in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    You mean undivided as in: "In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    (The capitalisation of "i" was per their MOS, not ours btw ;)) --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    Exactly so. The official synopsis is the best evidence that "Star Trek into Darkness" is meant to be read as an unbroken title. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Star Trek: Into Darkness per everything I already said. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I can't even believe you guys are having this conversation. Are you really trying to say that "Into Darkness" isn't a subtitle? That it is part of a sentence? The fact that this requires the opening sentence of the article to say (normally written as . . . ) shows you exactly the problem there - no one writes it as a sentence becayse it makes no sense as a sentence. FOARP (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    Paramount incorporated the title into a sentence in the official synopsis for the movie, so the basis of your argument doesn't exist. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Ummm, again, from the official synopsis: "In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness" --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I find this new request to move to be extremely premature. If there was a consensus for Star Trek: Into Darkness, it would have arisen in the last request to move. There was no consensus all around. We were just winding down and accepting a modification of the lead sentence until new evidence would have us review the issue. Nor do I think that it was a good move for DillonLarson (talk · contribs) to kick off a new RM without ever commenting on this talk page before. I've filed a WP:ANI notice about getting this discussion closed speedily. The notice can be seen here. Notice was moved to WP:AN here. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    I don't understand why it's such a problem to simply discuss something. What could be wrong with that? 131.211.45.47 (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems somewhat precious of previous editors to act as if their discussion was the be-all-and-end-all on this subject. This debate has just been exposed to a much larger number of people who are all likely to have views on it - mostly, shall I add, supporting this move and thinking that anyone who thinks that the title should be written as a meaningless sentence needs their head examined FOARP (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not us being precious, it's us seeing the same arguments, the same evidence, and the same cyclic discussions beginning again when they've only just finished. It was (mostly) agreed that'd we'd reached a compromise for the time being, and that we wouldn't bring it back up unless there was some new evidence that proved either way categorically. As of yet, no evidence exists. If you haven't already, I suggest you read the preserved review above, the followup conversation, and Frungi's summary. Before all of those discussions, there are 3 whole archives, the majority of which is made up of this same debate. It's not that we're being parochial, it's that we've analysed every single shred of evidence to death over countless hundreds of hours, and thousands of words. We don't feel that there is any chance that we'll reach consensus by continuing this any further at this time. There is clear evidence provided by official parties that point to it being one sentence, and clear evidence that it's a subtitle. Until such a time as we have clear cut evidence that it's one way or another, and officially denying the other way, this conversation is not going to go anywhere. drewmunn talk 14:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It would appear that maybe because of the coverage this page has received, non-regular and new editors are being attracted to this discussion. I know it isn't WP:CANVASSING, but it seems to have had a similar effect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a silly conversation, but even as such, I do agree that "Into Darkness" is plainly, obviously, and even citedly a subtitle. Wikipedia convention for Star Trek movie subtitles is to use a colon, regardless of whether a colon is used officially. Fieari (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't see anything that suggests "Into Darkness" isn't a subtitle, while there are quite a few reasons to believe it is. King Klear (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ummm, again, from the official synopsis: "In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
So? 131.211.45.47 (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
No subtitle, and it reads as a sentence. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The fact that even the official synopsis, where the title is used as a sentence, uses upper-case I shows that Into Darkness is a subtitle. If it was not, there would be no reason for the capitalization. On the contrary, if they meant the four words to be a complete title without a subtitle, they would have shown that with a lower-case "into". King Klear (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
If anyone took the time to read the previous discussions, they would see that this is what we've been discussing for months. However, you contradict yourself in your comment by claiming that it is both a sentence and a subtitle. This is both the crux of the problem, and the reason we cannot form a consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I have read through the discussion, as well through the very useful summaries, otherwise I wouldn't dare intrude here. In any case I'm not contradicting myself. I maintain that the title (Star Trek) and subtitle (Into Darkness) are used in a sentence in the official synopsis. Please note that the way the synopsis is worded, "Star Trek into Darkness" doesn't mean the same thing as "taking Star Trek into Darkness", the later refering to Abrams and the direction the franchise is taking. King Klear (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes but why does the fact that what you quoted is a sentence imply that the title should be read as one? 131.211.45.47 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Because that's how the sentence is structured!!! "...to take Star Trek into darkness". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but you have to make the link between that sentence on the one hand, and the title on the other, stronger. The fact that a marketeer makes a pun does not automatically imply anything for the name of the product. Note (on the side) that there's a subtle difference in the subject of the texts (synopsis vs. movie title). The synopsis is about the movie and its franchise, whereas the title is (supposedly) about the story content. I.e. the movie title is the title of the story, whereas the synopsis discusses the tone and outlines the story: it's a story about a story. If the title of the movie was really meant to be read and interpreted as "taking Star Trek into darkness", I would expect a movie about how they made Star Trek darker or something similar. Sort of a 'making of'. 131.211.45.47 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Drew's comment below covers it quite well. And by your same argument, to suggest that it is a subtitle is also an interpretation, and therefore WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Therefore, for now, we can do nothing but to take it at face value. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Completely agree with the user above who said "the fact that a marketeer makes a pun does not automatically imply anything for the name of the product". As Frungi points out below, that synopsis can be read as using Star Trek as the franchise title and into darkness as a phrase. So not intended as a complete title, just a marketing pun. Nsign (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
But there are other reasons to think it is a subtitle, namely the capitalization in all official sources, the Abrams interview and the way the title is written in the trailer, teaser, and poster. I don't recall seeing any good evidence that it isn't a subtitle. King Klear (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The sentence reads as taking "Star Trek", and moving it "Into Darkness", so it's "Star Trek Into Darkness". If you find it easier, replace "Star Trek" with "Drew", and "Darkness" with "McDonalds". Now, it reads "Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Drew Into McDonalds". It proves neither that it's a subtitle (in this case, the title would simply be Drew, which I, even being called Drew, don't think is a good title), nor that it's definitely one sentence (although I believe it is). It's simply the choice of the studio in styling their title. We style it differently, but it doesn't make their styling wrong, or force it to imply the existence of a subtitle. drewmunn talk 14:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, so the movie "Drew Into McDonalds" would then be about how Drew went into the McDonalds. By analogy, "Star Trek (i|I)nto Darkness" would then be about how the franchise Star Trek was taken into darkness. Which it isn't: it's about how Kirk saves the universe. I agree that the sentence in the synopsis doesn't imply anything either way. Therefore, I think the current title "Star Trek into Darkness" is the one that is assuming things: the movie poster, teaser and previous Star Trek movies all imply that "Into Darkness" should be a subtitle, and there is no reason to assume otherwise. 131.211.45.47 (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Btw I couldn't help in my mind replacing "Drew" by "Poland" and "McDonalds" by "Space" :p 131.211.45.47 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
As demonstrated, by at least 3-4 editors, there is reason to think otherwise. This is why we can find no consensus, and why, at this time, we should not be taking the title to be anything other than its face value. By assuming it is a subtitle, one would be guilty of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The real issue here, as several users have pointed out, is actually the MOS (and the inflexible rigidity with which users insist on adhering to it). By taking the title at face value with no colon we assume a sentence (we don't know for sure, but we assume and there's a fair bit of OR coming from that side). By wikipedias own house rules, "into" then becomes lower case. Which in this case is unsatisfactory because we end up with a title rendering that no one else, anywhere, is using, and leaves the article looking glaringly inconsistent with real world usage. We will never resolve this here until an agreement is reached on changing the MOS. Or until there is an agreement to make an exception to the guideline. Which really should have happened ages ago. Nsign (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so other than the synopsis sentence (which I don't view as particularly convincing either way), what do we know? There's the fact that on the website it's repeatedly referred to as "Star Trek Into Darkness", but then again, so is "Star Trek Nemesis" etc., which is interpreted as "Star Trek: Nemesis" no problem, so apparently we cannot conclude anything from the absence of a colon there either. What are we left with? Teaser? Poster? Both seem to support the subtitle hypothesis. Am I forgetting anything? 131.211.45.47 (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
There's reams of discussion back and forth about this in the previous move request, let's not rehash it. It comes down to the MOS. Without consensus, which basically won't be reached because of obdurate inflexibility, this goes nowhere. Nsign (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A good encyclopedia should always reflect the facts as best as possible. The facts in this case is that there is no colon in the title. A check of Paramount's official website bears this out. Paramount owns that copyright for Star Trek and they can title their movie what they want. Who are we to change the title of a property owned by someone else? While style guidelines are needed for when there is a question or uncertainty, in this case there is none. Rather the goal should be to reflect the facts and reality as best as possible and not to enforce some arbitray style guidelines. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nobody is proposing that the title has a colon in it. The proposal is that the title is "Star Trek" and that "Into Darkness" is a subtitle, in which case proper Wikipedia style is to separate the two titles with a colon when presenting them on a single line. That said, I agree that Paramount's webpage is interesting evidence. "Star Trek Into Darkness" appears alongside films such as "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" and "Anchorman: The Legend Continues", suggesting that Paramount does not regard "Into Darkness" as a subtitle. It also appears alongside "World War Z", where "Z" is presented in a different font from "World War" and yet is clearly not a subtitle, undermining the "'Into Darkness' is in a different font from 'Star Trek' and therefore is a separate title" argument. —98.223.35.240 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It's clearly a subtitle, and WP:MOSTM makes clear that we are not slavishly beholden to the idiosyncratic style choices of production houses. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. I read the previous discussion thoroughly, and it did not adequately address the precedent set by other Star Trek films, of which the current series is a reboot. This page should be formatted in the same style as other Star Trek films. Also, the decision to decapitalize the "I," as it is capitalized in marketing, is done only in strict adherence to a general rule that defies common sense in the present instance. It is not too early to have a continued discussion because new information is being discussed that should change the consensus, and there -- to me -- really does not appear to be a valid argument in opposition. Zeutheir (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The previous discussion did address the precedent set at some length. There are acres of text devoted to it. The "current series" is also not a reboot. Nsign (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, the possibility of the colon was also discussed in the recent move discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Facepalm. Does it really matter that much guys? Srsrox (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support/Comment. From MOS:CT we have "every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words" -- I agree the cases specifically listed suggest "into" should not be capitalized, but thats missing the spirit of the rule, which is to capitalize important words, which "into" blatantly is, by simple virtue of the fact that we're even discussing it. In order to make capitalizing into make sense, the colon should be inserted. The comment part is that I think the length of this discussion merits considering an update to WP:MOS to handle cases like this explicitly and consistently. Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Jumping Humpback whale.jpg


Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

To you all!!! Why does it matter???? Leave it be!!! MisterShiney 16:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, mostly because of this: http://xkcd.com/386/ King Klear (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't care. Brining up another move request when a temporary solution had been achieved is foolish and makes us look even more like idiots as it has reopened the box. MisterShiney 17:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
So are you suggesting we apply WP:STEAM to this one? Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
No, we're suggesting people give our solution a chance. Just because xkcd has written a witty comment about a debate doesn't mean it wasn't resolved. We have come to a compromise in the last few days, and would ask that it's given time to flourish. We're not stifling your opinions, just pointing out that we've gone through them all five times over. There has been nothing new today that hasn't already been analysed, argued over, counter-argued, and put to bed for the time being. Please, just give it a few months to clear the baggage, and hopefully allow more solid evidence to be made available. drewmunn talk 17:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
For the record, whales and steamrollers are both heavy things that can squish other things, so I thought it was a joke explicitly intended to reference WP:STEAM. Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
On another note, MisterShiney, I left you a message. Do you mind chipping in? drewmunn talk 17:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better myself. It's just bad practice to effectively re open a closed discussion. Yes I saw that and did. MisterShiney 17:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, wait a minute, that's the wrong movie! I think you meant to drop this whale on Talk:Star Trek for the Voyage Home. Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Robert computer engineer (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The current 'compromise' is ridiculous. Dtaylor1984 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Having read the nomination rationale, I'm thoroughly unconvinced. Do reliable sources include a colon explicitly? No. Hence we fallback on our MOS guidelines, which support the current title. All those couldas-wouldas-shouldas and "they surely mean that..."s are just a waste of everyone's time. Assuming this is watched by a bunch of Star Trek fans, did you know that the overwhelming majority of entries in the list of Star Trek novels (to take a random list) are plain pathetic? Why not improve them instead of debating the finer points of subtitling?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 30, 2013; 19:03 (UTC)

1st Requested Move Should Already be Achived

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 20 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus after 29 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Last move request should have been archived on the 29th. All posts in the second move request saying 'we should postpone til archived' are invaild. - Aalox (Say HelloMy Work) 18:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't have time to "get into" this dicussion and go back and forth with a million responses, but I have two comments:
1. To me the posters clearly indicate "Into Darkness" is a subtitle whether it makes gramatical sense or not, and more importantly
2. Why is it that Apple gets to choose how you capitalize its product and Wikipedia jumps to support iPod by creating a whole system to allow first-letter-lowercase characters? But when the studio and every source on earth calls the film "Star Trek Into Darkness", we call back to manual of style? Is it because iPod is a product and Star Trek Into Darkness is a literary work? That seems unfair, and not consistant with other artistic works like iTunes Live from SoHo. Whether or not it is a subtitle, it just seems improper for 'into' to be lowercase given that is how the producers and the rest of the world have determined the title to be styled. Perhaps it is because there is no verb in the phrase "Star Trek Into Darkness" because Star Trek is generally seen as a noun. I read "Into" more as a verb as if "Into" represents "goes into" or "comes into" or whatnot.
Those are my two cents. TheHYPO (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Negative. It is 20 days after the last post. Otherwise still active discussions will be archived which serves no purpose other than to disrupt the process. MisterShiney 18:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy closed as not-moved (I can't remember the right template; if you know what it is, please use it). This discussion is getting lots of coverage on outside websites, and per people's concerns in the "Star Trek into Darkness" section of the current version of WP:AN, it needs to be speedy closed. Do not treat this as an endorsement of either side, and feel free to reopen it before long; please don't think of this as an attempt to stifle or put off discussion. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here…

Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars#Star Trek (I|i)nto Darkness —Jesse B. Hannah (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And this too http://xkcd.com/1167/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.169.79 (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
*nod*, see under #xkcd_Mention We might be able to ask for a CC-BY-SA license for that comic :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It's already CC-BY-NC, so I don't know whether he'd change it just for us! drewmunn (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
He can and has done so for other comics in the past. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know that. I wonder if he has an account so we can trout him. I wonder if he's been part of this conversation. He could have infiltrated our ranks! Trust nobody! Suspect everybody! drewmunn (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Especially not User:Xkcd! ;) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Incidentally seems to be only mildly active. Might be wise to use wikipedia email
Now, don't be logical. I've been driven slightly mad by the past months of debate, and it totally slipped my mind that his account could be called xkcd. Now, back to more pressing matters; I have an episode of Utopia to watch. That'll make me more sane. drewmunn (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC) you know too much about xkcd. My logically conspiratorial mind has decided you must be a sock puppet of Randall himself! Mwhahahahaha!
Shouldn’t that be User:xkcd? Just sayin’… —Frungi (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. "The preferred form is "xkcd", all lower-case. In formal contexts where a lowercase word shouldn't start a sentence, "XKCD" is an okay alternative. "Xkcd" is frowned upon. "" [1]98.247.64.244 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
"Star Trek Into Darkness". I commented that it should be this when they announced the title but mostly everyone said no against it and that it should just be 'into' instead of 'Into'.
Wish I was here when it got changed into "Into" and seen what everyone who disagreed with me then said. Oh well... Charlr6 (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Skydance Productions

http://skydance.com/movie/9/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness.html

One of the official production companies that worked on the film lists it on their site with title-case. A quick search showed that this information was not presented in the past arguments, so here it is.

To quote: "In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.192.161 (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That is taken from the official synopsis, which has been discussed in detail above. drewmunn talk 11:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The title case in other sources is irrelevant, as they may be following their house style, and we follow ours. However, it does show "into" as a preposition, which is one of the argumenents considered (at length) above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Except it's capitalized everywhere, regardless of house style. And I maintain the synopsis grammar is irrelevant; it uses "Star Trek" as a franchise title and "into darkness" as words, and it falls to the same argument that discounts official sources' use of the capital I. —Frungi (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Drive by comment. Article in UK newspaper The Independent includes this: "With just weeks to live, the film buff, who is from New York, wanted nothing more than to see Abrams’ hotly anticipated Star Trek sequel Into Darkness, which is not due out in the US until mid-May." To my simple mind, this looks like a great source to support the "subtitle theory".141.0.46.202 (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Except that the author of that article also refers to the film as "Star Trek Into Darkness" and wrongly refers to "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" as "The Hobbit". Credibility fail. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
If I were to write 'Star Trek', I'd be talking about an entirely different movie. I feel 'The Hobbit' doesn't require that clarification, since there's just one 'The Hobbit' so far. Doesn't imply anything about his credibility. Shashwat986talk 13:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A good encyclopedia should always reflect the facts as best as possible. The facts in this case is that there is no colon in the title. A check of Paramount's official website bears this out. Paramount owns that copyright for Star Trek and they can title their movie what they want. Who are we to change the title of a property owned by someone else? While style guidelines are needed for when there is a question or uncertainty, in this case there is none. Rather the goal should be to reflect the facts and reality as best as possible and not to enforce some arbitray style guidelines. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What other people use to term the film is of no consequence to us; we're an encyclopaedia, and don't base our layout simply on one or two journalists. The conversations above cover the large amount of effort that we've gone to trying to prove/disprove the subtitle styling, and no consensus has been reached. We've spent a long time trying to get this right, and no new evidence has come to light that proves either way since our compromise. The titular article of this section has been discussed in detail previously, and similar situations as the the second example quoted here have also been debated. If you haven't already, I ask you to read through the preserved move request, the post-closing discussion, and Frungi's summary. You may also find the archived debates of interest; there are 3 archives, with the majority of their content discussing this matter. Once reading through all of that material, you'll probably see why there are those of us who'd prefer it if you'd leave this for a month or so before bringing it up again. drewmunn talk 15:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If it's not a subtitle to the main title, then why, at the end of the trailers, is "INTO DARKNESS" displayed first, in large text, and then "STAR TREK" fades into view above it, in smaller text? That seems to strongly indicate that it's a subtitle, not one large continuous title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.33.26 (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
See above, I am not getting back into this. We've gone over all of this before, and it's considered WP:OR to cite that as an indications of a subtitle. drewmunn talk 17:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not getting back Into this. §A — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottauld (talkcontribs) 14:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

bringing to your attention another discussion concerning the matter of capitalizing certain prepositions in titles

(I know it has been brought up before, but since the sudden influx of posts is certain to drown out that information hidden in a wall of text, I'm hereby taking the liberty of creating a new section to re-post the notification.)
For a broader discussion of capitalization that also involves into / Into and whose outcome will affect the styling of this title as well, please see this. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh no! What have you done? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You mean I opened a door I shouldn't have opened? I don't think too many people who are not interested in this issue on a more fundamental level are ready to read through the huge discussion at WT:MoS. But then again, I might be wrong. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh my word! My head is going to explode!!!!! MisterShiney 16:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, fellow editors

It would appear that ripples over the incredibly pathetic and protracted conflict about capitalizing a single preposition has led elsewhere, mocking your ridonkulous behavior. Perhaps it is time to sort of cogently shut up for a bit and wait the actual film to come out? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to assume you haven't read the content of this talk page to have missed the discussion already taking place (and has been for nearly a day) about this very subject. Also, would you mind turning down your insults? We're working to resolve an issue, and we reached a compromise within the last few days. The xkcd comic has flared up an issue that we were letting lay; the majority of editors who were contributing to the debate prior to today decided to leave it for a good month or more, and that was going well until the deluge of new opinions from xkcd readers. We all try to remain civil, and respect each other's opinions on Wikipedia, so it'd be appreciated if you didn't insult the hard work we have put into making this article more effective. drewmunn talk 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The XKCD posting is already discussed above (in collapsed sections). It has exacerbated the issue, which had actually cooled down beforehand to await new evidence before reviewing. The editor who started a new RM had not edited since last November. I've made a request at WP:AN to speedy close the RM discussion. Perhaps the XKCD posting will lead to outside commentary that can conclude this issue. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Taken from startrekmovie.com --- "The anticipated Star Trek movie sequel: Star Trek Into Darkness. Watch the new Star Trek videos here! In theaters May 17, 2013." (Scroll to the very bottom in fine print. If you copy and paste it, you get 'I' not 'i').

Yes because that is an equally mature response from an editor who has had no contribution (that I can see) to this discussion and who is quite frankly here to disrupt and antagonise the process. I would ask that you re read Wikipedia Policies and guidelineseither make a constructive input or henceforth depart and try not to let the door hit you on the way out. MisterShiney 20:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not. helping. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


Of course people have missed the discussion already taken place. After all, the sections are collapsed. Might I suggest that collapsing discussions-in-progress is probably a bad idea?

That said, this is a famous repeating pattern.

  • If this section were to become collapsed... no one sees it.
  • So the next person to come by creates a new one...
  • ... which becomes collapsed so no one sees it...
  • ...so a new section is created... which is collapsed...
  • ...so no one sees it. so .... etc etc.

If we have a lot of bad luck there will also be some random deletions/reversions of comments, at which point people are forced to meatball:ExpandScope, and things snowball, and you'll start learning of the great wiki-edit war of 2013 in the press. ;-)


--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC) So Don't Do That(tm). Don't collapse, don't delete, and don't be snarky at newcomers

Matching article content with current title

If we aren't currently treating "Into Darkness" as a subtitle, we shouldn't call it it that in the article.

Current text in the article: "J. J. Abrams has stated that unlike the original series' Trek films, this film will have a subtitle with no number following the series title Star Trek, like The Next Generation's film series."

I propose we remove this section for now; it only generates confusion. (Yes, I found this from xkcd) Robert computer engineer (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We're listing encyclopaedic content, which the section above quoted is. Just because he stated it, doesn't mean it's true; Abrams said that a long time ago, and things could have changed. However, we document that he said it in the first place. drewmunn talk 17:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because he stated it at one point, doesn't mean we should include it in the article. Especially if we don't think it's true anymore. I don't see any added value in keeping that sentence there, and it makes Wikipedia internally inconstant. Since the current consensus is to leave it as not a subtitle, we shouldn't be implying that it is a subtitle in the article Robert computer engineer (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the reason it's still there is that we're not sure whether or not we can say "it's definitely not/is a subtitle", so it's there for people to draw their own opinions from. drewmunn talk 18:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't that type of discussion be here on the talk page? An Encyclopedia shouldn't be a "We report, you decide" thing that gives conflicting information in the main article. If anyone is interested in the controversy they can come to the talk page. When we revisit this page a month from now if we decide it is a subtitle we can put that back up, and if we decide it isn't, we can leave it removed. Robert computer engineer (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It's just another NPOV issue: we do need to report and let readers decide. Obviously we have to pick one of them for the article title, but if both ": Into" and "into" are getting used in relevant sources, it might be helpful to include a short section on the name of the film. Regardless of that, the text should generally use the same capitalisation/punctuation as the article title. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Nyttend, I get the feeling that you aren't really talking about what I'm talking about here. I'm not complaining about the current compromise situation with the title. We think it's unclear whether or not it's a subtitle, so since there's no consensus, we aren't changing it, but we mention both capitalizations. I don't think ": Into" or "into" are being used in any relevant sources, I believe it's all "Into", but that has nothing to do with what we're discussing in this section. Robert computer engineer (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You're right; I misunderstood you. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Some grammar clarifications

Several of the arguments on this page make extensive use of grammatical arguments, and much of the grammatical terminology used is either fuzzy or flat-out incorrect. I'm not going to directly address the, um, controversy above, but I want to do a little bit to clarify the grammar of the situation so as to inform further discussion and make sure people aren't talking past each other.

  1. First of all, under any construal, "star trek into darkness" is not a "sentence"; the debate is over whether it is two separate phrases (as argued by those supporting the "subtitle" interpretation) or one single noun phrase. As a single noun phrase, it would have the same structure as something like "road trip through wilderness". There is no dispute that the first two words are themselves a noun phrase (under either interpretation) and the last two are a prepositional phrase (under either interpretation); the question at hand is whether the prepositional phrase actually modifies the noun phrase to form a larger noun phrase, or if it remains separate.
  2. Under no interpretation is "trek" (or any of the other words) a verb here; although it can be one in general ("he trekked across the prairie"), in the four-word title in question, "trek" could only be a verb if its subject is "star", which is singular, and thus the required verb form would be "treks". Furthermore, that would imply that it is the stars that are trekking (traveling), but I don't think there's any dispute that the meaning here is that it's the ship's crew that is doing the trekking (through the stars). The non-proper phrase "star trek" is a noun phrase composed of two nouns, in the same way as "road trip" or for that matter "ham sandwich".
  3. The word "into" is also not a verb. Even if it were part of a phrasal verb construction (which it isn't here, see previous item), it would be a preposition that is either part of or complement to the verb, depending on your preferred linguistic theory. I think that what the "into is a verb" people are trying to argue is that "into darkness" attaches directly to "trek" even before "star" makes it into the mix, but that argument does not require changing the parts of speech of the words in it.

I think the linguistic arguments are sort of a sidebar to the main debate, but if people are going to keep using them it'd be good to use the right terminology so we all know what we're talking about. /blahedo (t) 19:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say towards the end of 3., however, I think you're wrong on 2., as the title could be interpreted as a sloppily punctuated imperative, becoming clear when a hyphen and an exclamation mark are added: "Star-trek into darkness!", in the sense of "go star-trekking", "go road-tripping", "go duck-hunting", whatever.
Now, do I think that's what's meant by the person[s] behind it all? No, but technically, it could be. Personally, I consider it likely they wanted to imply "a trek/journey/trip into sth." (a "single noun phrase", as you call it), the issue still being of whether or not to capitalize "into". If you know of a manual of style that does (along with, say, "over", "than", "till", "upon"), but which at the same time lowercases "from" and "with", let us know hereὁ οἶστρος (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, true, it could theoretically be an imperative, but that's not the situation the "trek is a verb" contingent was arguing. My comments at the end of 3 are basically that you could make an argument that "trek into darkness" is a phrase, which is then modified by "star", without claiming that "into" is a verb. "Into" is not a verb. I am avoiding making any specific comment about the capitalisation question in this section because I do not want to muddy the grammatical terminology point. /blahedo (t) 01:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Into is a preposition. Trek Into is a verb phrase. Trek Into Darkness is a noun phrase. Star is an adjective. Star Trek Into Darkness is a noun phrase. QED. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that 'trek' cannot be properly understood as a verb in the imperative mood with 'star' as the subject because, if it were, 'star' would be vocative and thus properly require a comma. 'Trek' can still be imperative if and only if the sentence is using the implied subject 'you' and 'star' is adverbial. However, 'trek' could still be properly understood as a verb with 'star' as its subject if 'trek' is in the subjunctive rather than imperative mood. An argument for 'trek' as a verb must, in my opinion, be based on the subjunctive mood. Of course, I think it's clear 'trek' is actually a noun, I'm just pointing out that it could be a verb and still leave the title grammatically correct. Chimon (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
For those reading this, this argument is incorrect. The author assumes star is the subject. a Trek Into Darkness can be its own noun phrase similar to a Trip Into Wilderness. Star becomes an adjective to describe the TYPE of trek, similar to how road is an adjective modifying the noun phrase Trip Into Wilderness. Hope that helps Xkcdreader (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

New article: Wikipedia's talk page for the article "Star Trek Into Darkness"

New article: Wikipedia's talk page for the article "Star Trek Into Darkness" Wstidtp (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don’t think it merits its own article, and isn’t there a policy against self-referential articles? —Frungi (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been speedily deleted (wrongly in my view). It's also referenced in http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-star-trek-into-darkness-capitalization/ Wstidtp (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that the debate could be mentioned in the film article. However, the debate is not notable enough for its own article. It's straightforward to summarize and fold the debate in the film article if there is consensus to do so. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
See WP:SUBJECT — "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves (even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself)." We don't have an article Wikipedia's "Elephant" article, even though an incident related to the elephant article has gotten far more coverage than this. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I was just going to bring up the now-userfied Elephant (wikipedia article) (note incorrect capitalization) and my sandboxed Elephant (wikipedia article) (Wikipedia article) (correctly capitalized, because the incorrect capitalization is part of the name of the prior article) about the preceding. cmadler (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We do have an article on Wikipedia, however, and in the community or history section, it might be appropriate to put:
On January 2013, Wikipedia lost its Goddamn collective mind, debating whether its suggestions regarding grammar mattered more than its rules advocating using common sense and ignoring rules when they simply do not match up with reality.(ref)http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-star-trek-into-darkness-capitalization/ "Wikipedians wage war over a capital "I" in a "Star Trek" film" By Kevin Morris, Daily Dot, 30 January 2013(/ref)
Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this really a reliable source? If so, it would be a good thing to include over there, as just another example of the phenomenon that has seen us become the only significant publisher of content that uses dashes instead of hyphens. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Daily Dot has editorial oversight, the usual standard for whether something's really a newspaper and not just a collaborative blog. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Another newspaper reference: Trekkies take on Wikis in a grammatical tizzy over Star Trek Into Darkness http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/trekkies-take-on-wikis-in-a-grammatical-tizzy-over-star-trek-into-darkness-8475705.html Wstidtp (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There you go, that's even a real newspaper. WP:N and WP:RS established. So now can we have a 2013 ''Star Trek Into Darkness'' Wikipedia controversy article, please? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)