Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Wikipedia Section

Any reason it was removed when it was well sourced and written by an established editor who is no doubt aware of the relevant policies? MisterShiney ✉ 07:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you in that it should be included. As dumb as the whole issue is, it spilled over into pop culture and the journalism realm. The fight is now history in the most literal sense. The correct title of the movie itself was the subject of the xkcd comic, thus mentioning the comic and the dailydot article would be appropriate. THAT SAID, it needs to be rewritten in its current form. The whole subtitle part should be removed completely, (see my section above for why the subtitle debate was irrelevant in the first place.) Secondly, the "some editors" comes off as a personal attack and could be written better. See my suggestion below. Xkcdreader (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The correct capitalization of the word 'Into' in the movie title became a matter of some debate on Wikipedia and was subsequently mocked by xkcd author Randall Munroe. In a comic titled 'Star Trek into Darkness' he lampooned the fact that over forty thousand words of debate had been produced on the issue. Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate spanned over two months. Morris also recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title." Guy Keleny, The Independent's top grammarian, compared it to David Garnett's novel Lady Into Fox (incidentally, Wikipedia use a lowercase 'i' for this title as well), noting that a quick internet search indicated that most publishers used a capital 'I'. Xkcdreader (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not notable when xkcd or any other webcomic makes fun of a topic. This section would be relevant in an article titled Wikipedia article about Star Trek Into Darkness, but that isn't this page. Prodego ^talk 08:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, but the results here are notable; see the top of this Talk page. —Frungi (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't true. There is a page explicitly outlining when it is relevant. Wikipedia:Xkcd_in_popular_culture The Independent wrote about it, and it meets the criteria. Furthermore, the Star Trek In Darkness page itself ALREADY has a Title section. My blurb written above is neutral, accurate, and sourced. I also think a sentence should be added to the paragraph already existing which says Simon Pegg described the word Trek as a verb. Xkcdreader (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably it was removed because of this from WP:SELFREF: To avoid self reference, a mention needs to reflect its importance in their overall body of work. (That’s in reference to BLPs, but I think it applies here too.) I agree that it certainly seems to have gotten enough attention to warrant a mention somewhere, but I’m neutral on whether that’s here. —Frungi (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

At the time I was not aware of SELFREF, and bearing that in mind perhaps my original version placed too much emphasis on the Wikipedia angle, but The Independent does make interesting grammatical observations about the title of the film which may be of relevance to the article. I certainly think there has been sufficient independent coverage to satisfy notability, but I'm happy to leave it to other editors to decide whether the article should cover it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please let's not include this in the article. It has NOTHING to do with the film, its self-referential and, really - do we want to draw any more attention to this farce than there already is? Nsign (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The section should not be included here. It has no relation to the film whatsoever, instead it is about an argument on Wikipedia. Sure, maybe it could be included it on Wikipedia in the media or Wikipedia in culture or XKCD or something, as it is about a criticism of Wikipedia on XKCD. It is not about the film. See WP:SUBJECT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree on one point: It's about criticism of Wikipedia in the media (using that term kinda loosely here). xkcd may have provoked said coverage, but it clearly extends beyond the comic at this point. For crying out loud, I get mentioned in multiple Google hits for simply summarizing the argument. —Frungi (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but, as per WP:SUBJECT, I'm sure you agree that it doesn't belong here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure it does. Read my italicized paragraph above. There is a TITLE section in the article as we speak. It talks about the title of the movie being unconventional. Then this happens because the title is confusing and it makes the news. The XKCD and the Daily Dot and the Independent articles were about the title of the movie and how it is parsed grammatically/linguistically. The italics I wrote above organically fit in the title section of the article. I would also add a sentence after the word Conan saying Pegg stated the word Trek is a verb. The entire title section should discuss the formatting/grammar of the title. I don't think it is fair to vote no because the subject is personally embarrassing. This is no different than Anonymous being mentioned in the V for Vendetta article. The movie title alone inspired a two month 40 thousand word debate, because no one could parse the grammar? That fits the subject of the "Title" paragraph. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not "personally embarrassing"! Like I said, it can go in an appropriate article, but it isn't appropriate here per WP:SUBJECT. V for Vendetta is completely different as it inspired real world events. And not wanting to accuse you of anything, but considering your username and the fact you have only been editing for a couple of days (exclusively on this page), do you have any WP:COI that you should declare? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Did this turn into a personal attack? Is reading xkcd a conflict of interest? You are wrong to cite WP:SUBJECT because the confusing nature of the title of the movie became frontpage news. WP:SUBJECT actually supports my argument. "Articles where Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article" Wikipedia played a major roll in the confusion surrounding the title of the movie. If it had stayed self contained I would agree with you. It didn't The question of how to parse the title spread to journalism. It is perfectly valid to cite journalism discussing the title of the article in the title section. It is absolutely unequivocally on the topic of the movie title. To say internationally published confusion surrounding the title of the movie doesn't belong in the title section is ludicrous. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You're clearly missing the point about "Articles where Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article". Wikipedia has had no influence whatsoever over the film or the titling thereof. If Abrams decided to change the title of the film as a direct result of our squabbling, only then would Wikipedia have "played a major role in the subject of the article". As I said, it may be appropriate on an article about Wikipedia, but as it has no real-world influence on the subject of the article, then it isn't appropriate here. Remember, XKCD and the other articles are writing about Wikipedia and the actions of Wikipedians, not about how the studio has named the film. And I think you're over-dramatising when you suggest that there has been "internationally published confusion surrounding the title of the movie". --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me try and frame this a little differently. If the Daily Dot and Independent had run articles about how confusing the title is to parse grammatically, there would be no debate. Everyone would be for inclusion because it directly relates to the title. But because a mention of a wkipedia debate is required to give context as to why the articles exist, it becomes controversial. The subject is the confusing grammar of the title. The context is the wikipedia debate. You can't discuss the subject without the context without being confusing. IF YOU READ the italicized paragraph above you will see the focus is on journalists discussing the grammar and marketing surrounding the title, and not wikipedia. You claim that JJ would need to change the title of the film for it to be mentioned. Go back to my analogy. Anonymous is mentioned in the V for Vendetta article. Anonymous has not influenced V for Vendetta in any way. They didn't change the movie. Articles discussing the grammar of the movie title are 100% appropriate in a section about the movie title. This topic is clearly laid out in Wikipedia:Xkcd_in_popular_culture. It meets the criteria for inclusion (Have reliable sources which do not generally cover xkcd pointed out the strip?) because the topic is the grammar of the title not wikipedia itself.Xkcdreader (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The WP:Xkcd in popular culture describes exactly why it shouldn't be included here! Look at the "Appropriate references" where real-world events happened to the subject of the page: "Python 3 actually added this module", "the campaign received over a hundred thousand dollars from online donations" and "he actually dressed up like that". The parallel is to be drawn with the Voynich manuscript example instead, where "because the xkcd strip has had no larger influence on the manuscript itself, nor on the public reception of the manuscript". So the xkcd strip has had no larger influence on Star Trek, but it has had a larger influence on Wikipedia and the public reception of Wikipedia, hence it would be appropriate on a page about Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Xkcd_in_popular_culture does not say real-world events must happen. It has 3 points (read the "how to tell the difference) and says you should be able to answer yes to one or more. We can answer yes to one. You completely ignored the rest of my point. If newspapers ran articles about the confusing nature of the grammar of the title, inclusion would be a no brainer. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The situation clearly follows the pattern of the "Inappropriate references" example. And because it might meet one of the criteria of "how to tell the difference" section is not reason enough for inclusion. It doesn't say "if it meets the criteria include it", it says "if you can't, then don't". Big difference. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, we are talking about an unprecedented situation here. Wikipedia has a couple big policies like Ignore All The Rules, and Be Bold. I am trying to use common sense and objectively document the confusing nature of the movie title. The fact that a large portion of the debate happened on wikipedia should have little bearing. If the New York Times had a 40 thousand word debate on the subject of how to grammatically parse the movie title, we would mention it here. I am not trying to ruin the article. I am not trolling just to agitate you. I am not trying to take sides to rub it in the other ones face. I am trying to be bold and document this event in an encyclopedic fashion. There is something special about the construction of this movie title. It is incredibly confusing to a lot of people (mostly because they are not expecting Trek to be a verb and Star to be an adjective [I suppose it could be an adverb too if 'Trek Into Darkness is interpreted as a verb phrase. /tangent]) I am asking you to work with me here. Ignore the rules and think outside the box for a second. Does a one or two sentence mention of this event make the article worse? Does it hurt anything to at least include it temporarily? Does it suddenly destroy all the other wikipedia policies to make an exception? I am sure I can go dig up policy which makes just about any proposal someone comes up with. Being overly dependent on the rules is what got us into this mess in the first place. If I write a better more encyclopedic version of this paragraph will you help me, and put it in the article? Boldly go where wikipedia has not gone before. Once we can actually see it in the article, we can have another discussion about it's relevance without using old policy documents. The debate should plainly and simply be "does it improve the article?" So my proposal is this. I will rewrite the title section and post it in a new paragraph on the talk page. I ask you to include it in the article and then the community can debate if it improves the page. Refusing to engage me with this proposal will demonstrate the problem with the bureaucratic nature of wikipedia itself. There will always be some stickler for a rule that votes against inclusion just because some other page says so. The over dependence on rules is what caused this mess in the first place. Let's try something different, because that didn't work. That behavior doesn't make wikipedia a better place, it makes it a place so frustrating that quality contributors quit and leave. The enforcement of rules should never become such a burden that they chase away people that otherwise are willing to work hard to improve this site. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would make the article worse, as it would add WP:UNDUE weight to the topic, as described in WP:SUBJECT. As I keep saying, it's appropriate on a page about Wikipedia, not on one about a Star Trek film. Go add it there. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I probably agree with Rob on this, it should be mentioned somewhere, but probably not in this article. douts (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The spirit of wikipedia is be bold. Use common sense. Ignore the rules. One of the five pillars is wikipedia does not have firm rules. Yet you keep citing rule after rule to prevent participation. I don't know how else to say this. The unconventional and confusing grammar of the movie title should be mentioned in the title section of the movie's page. As I have tried and failed to explain, the inclusion has nothing to do with wikipedia. It addresses the grammatical structure of the title. It doesn't belong on a page about wikipedia because it isn't about wikipedia, it is about the movie title. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Being bold and ignoring the rules are all well and good if it improves Wikipedia, but not if it doesn't. You could argue that vandalism is being bold and ignoring the rules, but it isn't exactly helpful! I don't mean to be WP:BITEY, but as I've tried to demonstrate, following the guidelines (not "rules") shows us how to appropriately add this information to Wikipedia. I'm not saying that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, it just doesn't belong here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And as I keep saying (which it feels is falling on deaf ears because it is continually ignored) is that it DOES belong here because it directly related to the article topic. "Confusion has arisen as to how the movie title should be grammatically interpreted" followed by a newspaper citation. Confusion about the movie title is newsworthy and significant. It makes the article better to analyze the grammatical interpretation of the title. Comparing documentation of the titles confusing nature to vandalism is a straw man and unappreciated. I feel as if you have a conflict of interest in this discussion because you were involved in the initial debate. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly has this "confusion" arisen? And be careful of accusing me of WP:COI, when you have a WP:SPA and a username reminiscent of the webcomic that broke this story. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Me making a new user account for this conversation is irrelevant. Address my argument and stop with the personal attacks. Just because wikipedia is one of the places where the conversation happened does not mean the title is not confusing. You were directly involved in the initial discussion. You would have motive for suppressing mention of the title debate. True or false, debate has arisen as to how one interprets the title? If the answer is true it should be included in the movies title section, the part of the article that discusses the movie title Xkcdreader (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I repeat - Where exactly has this "confusion" arisen? In the real world or on Wikipedia? Are people running around the streets saying "I'm so confused over the new title of the Star Trek movie" or are the news reports only commenting on the fact that we had an argument here as to how best to apply the guidelines/MoS? And I have no "motive" to suppress anything. I've not even suggested we do - as I've said, by all means include it in a page about Wikipedia (as that's what the articles are about) - just that it is inappropriate here as per every guideline I can find. Incidentally - you mention that you've created "a new user account for this conversation". I trust you've read WP:MULTIPLE. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Rob - yes the overriding rule is to “use common sense," "be bold," and "ignore the rules" - but there are also rules that shouldn't be ignored just for the sake of being bold. Common sense isn't always right, and one person's common sense (to include a reference to the title's confusing nature) may be different than another’s (to not include that reference here). That's why it's good to have a discussion about whether it makes sense or not. So let’s have that discussion without saying that someone who disagrees with your opinion is doing so just because they're ardently sticking to the rules without thought. Jonahx (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

To your point about including the paragraph - I do think it's WP:UNDUE off WP:SUBJECT and self-referential. The news organizations were not covering the fact that the title is "difficult to parse" -it seems pretty straightforward for the general public - they were covering the fact that people on Wikipedia were having a protracted discussion about it. And they only covered that when it was brought to light by a popular web-comic. My sense is that the writers and editors of the article were printing them much less due to the grammatical interestingness of the title, and much more due to the fact that it's interesting journalism to document the perceived fanaticism of both Star Trek enthusiasts and Wikipedia enthusiasts. The "Title" section in this article is also not about the grammar of the title - it's about the title's place among other Star Trek movies - and its origin. The discussion did gain wider audience and became newsworthy - so of course it would be proper to include your paragraph on another page - but to do so on this page, I think, vastly overweighs the importance of this discussion to pretty much everybody, and almost certainly everybody coming to the page looking for information about the movie. If the point really is not about the Wikipedia discussion and really because you think the title is grammatically confusing - the most that is warranted would be something like "The title's grammatical construction has been the subject of debate (with references)," but personally I think even that is overstating it since the only place the debate has occurred is here (and when this debate has been covered in other outlets), and would require that sentence to be added to hundreds and thousands of movies and works with grammatically ambiguous titles. Jonahx (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that xkcd broke the story is completely irrelevant. The Daily Dot article covers the full controversy including the talking points. Virtual events can be documented, they do not need to occur in the streets. I don't think discussing the unprecedented use of Trek as a verb (how old is this series, how often have they explicitly done this) adds unnecessary weight to the article. I think discussing the unique title as compared to every other entry in the series very much belongs on this wikipedia page. JJ Abrams himself is already directly quoted in the article, discussing the title's unique nature. I think you are vastly overestimating wikipedia's uniqueness if you think this the only pace where the subtitle/sentence and trek/verb debate has occurred. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Dot article covers the topic in relation to Wikipedia and Wikipedians, nothing else. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This conversation was EVERYWHERE back in September. Here is a news article from Sep 10th. http://www.blastr.com/2012/09/star-trek-2-gets-an-offic.php The fact that the debate blew to such big proportions on wikipedia is IRRELEVANT. If it had happened on reddit, or cnn, or in time square itself it would be equally newsworthy. The title is confusing. It has been covered by countless news organizations. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Xkcdreader, I see what you're saying but the debate was really about Wikipedia and its adherence to the MOS and when to make exceptions or follow other policies such as CommonName etc. No one disagreed that the movie title title IS Star Trek Into Darkness. The disagreement concerned how Wikipedia chose to style it - there were no debates anywhere else in the media (as far as I know) prior to this farrago about the film title. This was a Wikipedia issue and the problem originated on this talk page. It wasn't an existing issue with the title that we just picked up on. We should not therefore self-reference. Do we add something to every article where there's been a style dispute saying that Wikipedia editors argued about it? No, and nor should we for this article. And - my personal opinion - I think its better for Wikipedia if we try and limit how much light we shine on this episode. There's been enough reputational damage as it is. Nsign (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

First off, I don't have multiple accounts, I have a new account. Enough with the rule citations, PLEASE. How many times can I ask that we address the topic and not my name? Personally I think any regular wikipedia editor will be biased against inclusion. The same way that an enron employee would be against inclusion of negative press to a stock market fraud page. Nsign confirms my belief by saying that it should be concealed to prevent further damage to wikipedia's reputation. As a non-editor who decided to chime in for once, this is terrible. As such, I feel the only people that can be objective are fresh eyes. I am not a part of your culture, I can be more objective than you. I have seen this same conversation all over the internet. Trek forums, reddit, movie forums, twitter etc etc. Nowhere did it get as out of hand as wikipedia. The title is generally confusing. Is it meant to be a sentence or is In Darkness a subtitle? (hint: I believe it is both) Is Trek a verb or a noun? (hint: probably more a verb than noun) These are common questions that exist outside wikipedia. Wikipeda is the best example to cite when discussing the debate, because it went the furthest here. There were more eyes and more participants than dedicated star trek forums. It didn't get so out of hand that at least three newspapers (that I know of) covered the topic. The fact that Simon Pegg tweeted that trek is now a verb definitively proves my point. The official marketing campaign is using trek as a verb. Such a change as compared to prior use should be covered by an encyclopedia. The fact that its use as a verb caused mass confusion (and it is completely irrelevant WHERE it happened, it happened.) created a two month conversation that still has not ended, is testament to the fact that this isnt some minor thing that should be brushed under the rug. The use of Trek as a verb and the general confusion it caused should be documented pubicly. Period. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The stuff about Wikipedia is a distraction from the article. I don't see that the title has caused widespread confusion or debate to the point where it is notable. Xkcdreader, if you can cite reliable sources evidencing a more widespread controversy about the title, I encourage you to do so. But so far, I think the focus in the news has been on Wikipedia's own dysfunction and inability to resolve something that seems trivial. I was looking at Criticism of Wikipedia#Criticism of the community and thought something might be developed there where it could be more appropriate. Fletcher (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It only got media attention once it blew up here (and even then, its not exactly on the front pages, we're talking a handful of online articles). Before that it was limited to forums and the twittersphere. The controversy is of Wiki's own making and we should not self reference a Wikipedia dispute in an article intended to inform people about the FILM. Nsign (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to see I have a new fight to watch for a few days :-D Hughperkins (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

They'll be writing articles about this dispute soon at this rate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

To add something relevant to the current discussion, perhaps the question boils down to: would someone who comes to the article about Star Trek Into Darkness potentially be interested in the Talk Page controversy? Would a Star Trek fan who comes to the article about Star Trek into Darkness potentially be interested in the Talk Page controversy? Hughperkins (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Simply, I don't think someone would come to this page for this information per WP:UNDUE. However, someone interested in Wikipedia controversies would want to find it on a page relevant to that. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically, WP:UNDUE states that each article or page fairly represents all viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoints, thus is not I think relevant to whether to reference the controversy. Hughperkins (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - I'm also a new user - (I've maybe put minor edits on two or three pages and never added to a talk page) So let's not say that there's some movement by wikieditors to suppress this, and all the fresh eyes think it's a good idea. Again, the debate about the wiki title is interesting and newsworthy, the debate about Star Trek titles and their grammatical nuances are interesting, and what this movie's title adds to that debate is interesting. I just don't think the proper place for it is on the Wikipedia Page for the film. Eager to please Hugh :) Jonahx (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We can't guess how much irrelevant minutiae the average movie fan would be interested in, and that's really who the article should be aimed at, not Star Trek fans. They've got their own sites. The article should be about the film, not us having a barney over a capital letter.Nsign (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Would Star Trek fans be interested in the fact that trek is being used as a verb for the first time, and that into darkness is apparently not a subtitle. JJ himself commented on the unprecedented of the topic. Simon Pegg came out and spoke on the verbness. I will list other organizations that covered the verbification of the word Trek. http://www.blastr.com/2012/09/star-trek-2-gets-an-offic.php Ctrl+f this deadline page, there is a noun verb debate dated september 10th. http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/paramount-hangs-a-title-star-trek-into-darkness-is-next-enterprise-voyage/ Here are more sources http://www.movieweb.com/news/star-trek-into-darkness-is-rumored-to-be-the-title-of-j-j-abrams-sequel http://www.grammarly.com/answers/questions/10287-star-trek-into-darkness-phrasal-verb/ http://www.slashfilm.com/zachary-quinto-and-karl-urban-talk-star-trek-2-now-officially-titled-star-trek-into-darkness/ The grammar of the title was wildly discussed outside of wikipedia, it just got the most attention here. IF the community chooses to address the uniquness of the title, it should also address the confusion it caused. If it is mentioned, it should include the use of the movie title in a sentence in marketing material. If it addresses the confusion it caused it needs to mention wikipedia. If it mentions wikipeida common sense dictates it would also mention the xkcd comic which broke the story. To pretend to ignore the confusion that trek as a verb caused just because it partially happened on wikipedia is dishonest. Wikipedia isn't some sacred cow above being referenced in a story. Whether the editors want to admit it or not Trek being a verb is a huge deal and the fact that it spawned this debate is my evidence. Can anyone cite a single movie title that has been more controversial as to its grammatical interpretation? I feel like the existence of the debate on wikipedia is clouding everyone's judgement. As far as star trek goes, the title change is historical. If it wasn't such a big change this event never would have happened. Just because some of the discussion happened on wikipedia doesnt mean we should whitewash its existence. I personally think that non trek/wikipedia fans would find it very interesting to hear that Trek is being used as a verb for the first time, and all the controversy such use brought the internet. If random youtube stars get pages, this should get a mention.Xkcdreader (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's sufficiently covered as it is, but even if we do add something about the confusion over the noun/verb/subtitle/whatever, it would only be relevant to mention the Wikipedia debate on this page if the debate had caused the problem. As you state, this goes back to September, so this pre-dates the Wikipedia issue, and thus isn't really relevant. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You think it is sufficiently covered? How many times does the word verb appear in the Star Trek Into Darkness article? Xkcdreader (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean I think we've covered the titling of the film sufficiently. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The debate wasn't really about whether it was a verb phrase or not (although it did come up). It was about whether or not to capitalise "Into" as per what every other source was doing and which policies / guidelines of Wikipedia supported or did not support that move.

I'm having an argument about an argument. Someone please - shoot me in the head. Nsign (talk)

The capital I debate was derived from the debate over whether it was a subtitle or a sentence fragment (in this case a noun phrase). The use of Trek as a verb was the core of the contention. I can even cite this one, it was written by you http://www.grammarly.com/answers/questions/10287-star-trek-into-darkness-phrasal-verb/ Xkcdreader (talk)

No, its the other way around. I changed it to "Into", someone changed it back, I questioned it here and it went from there. The phrasal verb stuff came up later while we discussed whether it could be capitalised as part of a phrasal verb. This debate was all about capitalisation - the subtitle/not subtitle stuff came up to either support or oppose it. Nsign (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You can't use that as a WP:RS - that isn't independent coverage. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Xkcdreader, you might consider that currently there are at least 3 people who feel that this should not be included in the film article, and only you arguing that it should be, so the consensus would appear to be that it should not be. Continuing to argue the point only reinforces the current consensus I think. I think if you want to change consensus, your best action might be to wait for other people to weigh in on the discussion. As for me, I don't have any strong opinion one way or the other, though I confess that my personal bias is I'm an Xkcd fan, and had never heard of the film until yesterday :-D Hughperkins (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Really........? We're arguing about this? If half of the energy put into this debate was put into finding a cure for cancer, we'd be well on our way. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. We've already told User:Xkcdreader that the content isn't suitable here, but could be added elsewhere, but he won't seem to accept this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the articles! They give us a lot to go on. The blastr article is the only one that seems to me to specifically talk about the grammar of the title, which implys a broader debate not started by this discussion (exactly how broad is not clear). The others are less useful. One is an ask.com-esque question that likely came about because of this discussion (see who posted it? lol) The other articles mention there is hype about the title, but not because it's grammatically interesting. The slashfilm says there is confusion and speculation about the title, but it seems to be referencing the meaning of the title -not the grammar - not to mention being more of a hype-inducing phrase than one reporting actual conditions. The reason people are pushing back against including your paragraph is not because we're trying to "protect Wikipedia." People are saying that the reason this received so much coverage is not because there is so much confusion about the title - it's because it became a heated discussion on Wikipedia, which is why it would be inappropriate to reference that discussion on this page. There's another question about whether the possible change of Star Trek to a verb as possibly implied by the title is newsworthy enough to include here or on another page - I guess that's up for discussion. It certainly is important for a certain number of people, and Xkcdreader believes it is. I don't really know - perhaps it's more appropriate on anotther Star Trek page where implied title over time verbiness can be discussed? (Did I really just write that?) Otherwise I think it's sufficent to say that it diverges from other Star Trek movie naming conventions as is already done. Jonahx (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And I said, I think people who participated in the initial debate/are regular wikipedia editors will be biased against inclusion. I can see why wikipedia regulars would want to hide this. Nsign flat out said it. Fresh eyes from outside the wikipedia realm are necessary. @Jonahx, Like I said I am willing to write a neutral evaluation of the commotion the title caused across the interwebs, I just need some time. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Then write it on a page about Wikipedia, not here. It simply isn't notable in relation to this topic, although it might be in relation to controversies about Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop repeating the same thing over and over. You are an incredibly frustrating person to work with. It is not your decision to make alone. You are not in charge. You have already voiced your opinion. If I write about the title of the movie, I will make sure it is appropriate for this article. Xkcdreader (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WOW! I wasn't expecting this when I made the original post! Personally, I believe it should in the least get a mention. It is relevant to the Subject at hand (Star Trek Into Darkness), it is verified by an independent (no pun intended) reliable source (The Independent). The secondary user submitted/blogs should not be used (hardly relevant considering they are mocking in nature), where as The Independent article is professional in it's nature and is highlighting the grammatical side of things. Whether or not it is suitable content for it's own section remains to be seen. In the very least though it should be highlighted in the title section, having been mentioned in a mainstream publication. MisterShiney ✉ 17:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Extra comment: WP:SUBJECT would not apply. We are saying "The Independent said XYZ about the Wikipedia discussion re the grammar of the title" (backed up with a source) and not "There was a long discussion on the Wikipedia talk page" (referencing the talk page). MisterShiney ✉ 18:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think as long as whatever is added is about the grammatical issues rather than the discussions had back here I cant see any problems with it. (Which I think is what Rob was getting at). douts (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SUBJECT does apply: "...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". I do think, concurring with douts, mention could be made about the grammatical oddity of the title, using the sourced article. But it should not be a jumping off point to start talking about Wikipedia. Fletcher (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree the subject should stick to the grammatical issue, and ignore the I|i. The case of the i has nothing to do with the article. I however disagree that mention of wikipedia should be avoided. The grammatical issue causes confusion and a comic was made concerning the resulting confusion and debate. Wikipedia is inherently intertwined in the issue now. A common colloquial term used to describe this is the "poster child." In talking about the confusion, wikipedia is going to come up in passing and there is nothing wrong with that. As I said before, bringing up Wikipedia will almost be required to paint a context around some quotes. Xkcdreader (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SUBJECT absolutely would apply, and reading through WP:SUBJECT suggests it was written exactly for this type of situation. This article is about a movie. The Independent article was not discussing the movie but rather a Wikipedia article, and WP:SUBJECT is pretty clear on what means; the incident had nothing to do with the actual movie. - SudoGhost 19:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me try and explain my thoughts. Currently we are leaning towards including a line that says something akin to "A grammatical peculiarity in the title of the movie resulted when it was revealed that no punctuation would divide the series and episode titles, and that the Paramount marketing team was using the word Trek as a verb and Star as an adjective. This led to confusion as to the interpretation yada yada yada." Clearly I would word and source it better, but you get the point. A better sentence would include WHERE the confusion arose. We could go find less well documented forums discussing the same topic, but in this specific case, the wikipedia talk page IS the forefront of the issue. This is where the debate broke for all of the internet. It could have happened anywhere but it happened here. Everyone is now funneling here from other places (such as xkcd, daily dot to have the conversation here.) If the confusion arose in an irc chatroom we would cite that chatroom as the source. So it comes down to "what is a more encyclopedic sentence?" 'This led to confusion' or 'This led to confusion on wikipedia.' (again written in more professional language.) I can tell you right now I think the latter is a more accurate, specific sentence, and does not add any extra weight/length or unnecessary garbage to the paragraph. It is merely disclosing that the confusion was discussed is a certain place that in this instance, happened to be wikipedia. To me this is where ignore all rules and common sense come into play. We have WP:SUBJECT for this purpose, but IN THIS CASE the information we are trying to convey becomes less accurate and somewhat dishonest. It is kind of stupid to say "the irregular title led to confusion" and then cite some lesser source as oppose to the journalism that has resulted from the debate itself. I hope I am articulating why I think avoiding the mention of wikipedia makes the sentence MORE of a weasel sentence or cop out (because .. WHERE did the debate takeplace? The answer adds to the topic. If people want more information, they will know where to look.) It doesn't make sense to me to provide less information to comply with a rule, when providing more information makes the statement more powerful and accurate. Am I explaining my self clearly? Xkcdreader (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's where I'm confused...why do you think WP:SUBJECT shouldn't apply here, since it's entire purpose is specifically for incidents exactly like this? There's nothing different about this incident, except for the fact that it's currently happening. The fact that Wikipedia is a bit WP:LAME sometimes should perhaps go somewhere, but not in an article about a movie, since the subject of The Independent was Wikipedia itself, not the movie. - SudoGhost 19:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

OK so I am not wording it clearly. Let me try and come up with another way to explain it. I am not trying to write a big paragraph about the wikipedia issue. I just think the context of how the situation arose is necessary to clearly explain the subject. The subject of the Independent article does not matter to me, IF the article itself discusses the grammatical issue (the daily dot does a better job but whatever.) In the meantime, food for thought. - If this debate broke out on foxnews.com, and cnn covered the event, would there be any problem citing where it happened? Xkcdreader (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If foxnews.com couldn't get itself straight, then that would be an issue with foxnews.com, and since the subject of the theoretical CNN article would be foxnews.com's issue, would be appropriate at the Fox News Channel article, not at an article about a movie. - SudoGhost 20:05, 1 February

ok maybe I can explain it this way, maybe not. The xkcd comic discusses the title of the movie and the wikipedia debate. The daily dot article discusses the interpretation of the title of the movie and the wikipedia debate. If I am writing about the title of the movie these are going to be some of my sources. I am not trying to cover the debate as an event, but it comes up when covering the topic of the debate. The debate was about the structure of the sentence, and the paragraph is about the structure of the sentence. If all the sources analyze the wikipedia debate, what is the purpose of selectively leaving out some of the information just to comply with the rule? Is that any clearer? I am having trouble explaining that the topic of the debate itself is the same thing as the topic of the paragraph. So sources covering the debate will be used to illustrate the topic which itself is appropriate for the article. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you right, I dont see a problem with it myself, but why dont you draft what you plan on adding and post it here first, then we can see exactly what your suggesting? douts (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok I am glad we are good so far. Now to take it one step further. It seems people are ok having a sentence explaining there is controversy surrounding the interpretation of the title. If a thesis is "controversy erupted concerning the grammatical structure of the title" can the source cited for this statement be the xkcd comic itself, or the daily dot article? The xkcd comic is documenting the controversy. The comic is fact. Debate over the title did erupt, because it IS confusing. The forty thousand words with no clear answer is PROOF itself that the title is confusing. The Daily Dot article articulates that the topic is confusing, but in doing so mentions the wikipedia debate. The fact that debate did occurred on wikipedia is irrelevant, but there is no pressing NEED to leave it out. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I understand what you're trying to say, but to make a small correction: the xkcd comic discusses the title of the article, and the daily dot article discusses the article. The movie itself happens to be the subject of that article, and that's why WP:SUBJECT very clearly and specifically addresses this; this article is about the movie, the article is not about reaction to or discussion about the article, therefore it's inappropriate to turn this article into commentary about the article itself. - SudoGhost 20:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand the desire not to be self referential. I think the conflict arises because the title was confusing but the PRIME example of the confusion is the wikipedia debate. There are other examples but they are nowhere near as well documented or cohesively organized. Noen of the other confusion debates had comics written about them. Personally, it feels as if wikipedia editors are being a little egotistical and saying "this is our debate, we started it" when reality it is just they carried it on way too long. It would be possible to cover the confusion without mentioning wikipedia, but it would be BEST to cover the model example of the confusion and mention the largest documented conversation about the confusion we have, which is the wikipedia debate. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is about a movie. Everything, and I mean everything you've mentioned as far as sources and such have been about an article; not the movie. Therefore, WP:SUBJECT makes it very clear that what you're trying to put into the article absolutely does not belong on the article. There may be another article where this would be appropriate, but this article isn't it. It doesn't matter that the article just happens to be about the movie, every article is about something, and that's exactly why we have WP:SUBJECT, and you still haven't explained why you feel this would be some special exception when it is exactly the kind of thing that WP:SUBJECT covers, and is no different than any other thing that would be covered by the MoS in that regard. To clarify what you've been saying: "The xkcd comic is documenting the controversy." About the article. Not the movie. This is the exact reason why WP:SUBJECT exists, to distinguish between the subject and the article itself. When sources discuss the article, it is irrelevant to the subject and does not belong in an article about the subject itself, because the article is not the subject of the article, that is a self-reference. - SudoGhost 20:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the comic is about. It is completely irrelevant that the topic is wikipedia. The comic does prove that controversy over the grammatical structure of the title exists. Xkcdreader (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. If we could use that line of logic, WP:SUBJECT wouldn't exist, as it would have no purpose. It absolutely matters what the comic and the sources are about; that's the entire point. The controversy exists on the Wikipedia article. The sources are about the Wikipedia article. There is no controversy outside of the Wikipedia article. Without mentioning the Wikipedia article there is no controversy, because the controvery is the Wikipedia article, and with no controversy there's nothing to mention in the article. So either way, there's no justification for adding such content to the article. - SudoGhost 21:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem with using a reference to the Wikipedia debate when talking about the "confusion" over the title. The question is - would people be talking about the title at all if it weren't for the Wikipedia discussion, because if not then we're being self-referential (debate on Wikipedia but nowhere else -> news outlets ostensibly cover grammar of title, but only because of Wikipedia debate -> Wikipedia includes cover of grammar that only appeared because of Wikipedia debate) does that make sense? There is some evidence that a debate over the title occurred before the Wikipedia debate i.e. in this article: http://www.blastr.com/2012/09/star-trek-2-gets-an-offic.php but I don't know if it's enough of an issue that it should be cited in the Title section more than what's already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.8.73 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ctrl+f this page and type in 'verb' sans quotes. http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/paramount-hangs-a-title-star-trek-into-darkness-is-next-enterprise-voyage/ You will see that on September 10th at 10:39am people were already discussing the punctuation and noun/verbiness of the structure. I believe that is early enough to prove the confusion erupted organically and independently of wikipeida. People were talking about this RIGHT AWAY. It discussion just culminated here, because it was not resolved until the comic came out. That should answer the question of if it would have been discussed without the debate here. Hell, this deadline article itself can be cited as one of the "confusion erupted" sources. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that looks a lot of arguing. Unfortunately I haven’t been following it today, so I’ll just give this opinion before I embark on reading it with apologies if this has already been suggested and/or dismissed: This article should not report on itself, but it absolutely should make use of the published information and opinions about the title. It isn’t relevant to the movie whether Wikipedia had an aneurysm over its title, but the interpretation of the title is relevant. —Frungi (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You can probably just read the last couple discussions, the rest of it was just talking in circles and getting nowhere. The gist of my point is that mentioning wikipedia doesnt automatically make the sentence ABOUT wikipedia. If the claim is going to be made that confusion resulted, the PRIME example of the confusion is the wikipedia debate. There is no bigger, longer, more verbose version of the debate. So why not just cite the documentation of the best one that made it into the papers? "The grammatical structure of the title within the context of previous series titles became so confusing massive debate erupted over how to interpret the title itself." Xkcdreader (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The reverse is true, in fact. Mentioning the movie doesn't automatically make the sentence ABOUT the movie. The subject of those sources is without question the article on Wikipedia, not the movie. - SudoGhost 20:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But does it need to mention WIkipedia? I think it might be enough to cite the same articles and focus on the parts where they focus on the title, because that’s what’s inarguably relevant here. On a side note, this discussion seems to be mostly dominated by two editors, and it would be nice to get some other perspectives, either for or against. —Frungi (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What makes the sentence about the movie is how you construct it, not what the source topic is. I could be writing about bunnies and cite an article about vikings which covers the relationship between vikings and bunnies. Xkcdreader (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

But in this case, there is no relationship to speak of because the bunnies don’t care about the Vikings and the Vikings haven’t done anything to the bunnies. (And wow, there’s something I never imagined I’d say.) Independent sources reported on how the title should be capitalized and interpreted. No need to detail the fact that Wikipedia provoked them. —Frungi (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that these two articles are about the movie, and not about the Wikipedia article dispute? You can frame the sentence to be about the movie, but the sources themselves are about the article, and that's what matters: what sources say, not how we can manage to fit it in where it doesn't belong, when the sources and the MoS make it clear that it doesn't belong. Frungi, those sources are about the Wikipedia article, not the movie. If a sentence were framed that tried to cleverly avoid that, it would be cherry-picking the sources to fit their desired content, as opposed to what the sources actually said. We're not playing minesweeper here; if you have to try to skirt around the word Wikipedia and omit content to try to justify adding such content to an article, it doesn't belong on the article. Independent sources reported on the Wikipedia article's issues, without that, why would "Sources say the title of the movie should be capitalized" need to go into the article? - SudoGhost 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  Disagree. If a source has information that’s relevant to the movie (or whatever subject) even if it’s not the main focus of the source, then that information may be included in an article about that movie. And I’m not of the opinion that we need to avoid any mention of Wikipedia; I just believe it may not be necessary, and the article can discuss the title of the movie because it’s the title of the movie. —Frungi (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please close this section. Approaching 10,000 words talking about nothing. Do you realize that? It's a discussion about whether to include mention in the article about the discussion on Wikipedia about whether to capitalize the letter 'i' in the title of the article. Is that not sheer madness? Consider, for a moment, a sane reader. By sane, I mean someone who would immediately close their browser after looking at this talk page, and possibly unplug their computer. What useful information is being proposed that will benefit the sane reader? Yes, the title of the film is semantically odd. So what? Anyone can see that just looking at it. Do we have any interesting to add about the film that does not diverge into some meta-discussion or analysis of grammatical nuance that no one even cares about? If not, then close the discussion. Fletcher (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It’s about whether to include information on the grammar and capitalization of the title, in my view. Wikipedia just happened to be involved in provoking some sources to give that information. —Frungi (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What information? Anything useful? You can add sourced comments that the lack of a colon makes the title strange or ambiguous; I thought about adding a comment like that, but it felt jejune. Like saying the confusing title is confusing. Maybe I'm wrong, but don't think people are focusing on making the article interesting and relevant for the general reader. More like they are caught up in the debate. It happens to me too, but sometimes it's good to step away. Surely an article about a sci-fi action movie should have very little commentary about grammar, if any. Fletcher (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The references that have been offered to argue for including a section about this editorial dispute in the article itself do not merit such a mention, as per WP:NAVEL. At best it's trivia. Nightscream (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• External attention to this talk page and the title capitalisation decision deserves mention primarily at Wikipedia in culture. If it sticks there, then there should be discrete link to it from this article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• At very least, I think there should be a sentence in amongst there somewhere. Even if it's only a sentence, and even if it's not added until after release, I think it has a place. It's becoming more noticed in the wider media that we've caused such a fuss. As SmokeyJoe says, there's grounds for it to be in Wikipedia in Culture, and there should be something on the STID page noting that. For that reason, I support inclusion of some sort. drewmunn talk 18:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed "Title" Section

• On September 10th, 2012, Paramount confirmed the film's title would read Star Trek Into Darkness. J. J. Abrams had previously gone on record saying that unlike the original series' Trek films and yet in line with The Next Generation film series, his film would not include a number in the title. This decision was made to avoid repeating the sequel numbering that started with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan or making a confusing jump from Star Trek to Star Trek 12.
• In an interview with MTV, Star Trek writer and producer Damon Lindelof addressed the team's struggle to solidify a title. In discussing the matter he stated "there have been more conversations about what we're going to call it than went into actually shooting it at this point." "There’s no word that comes after the colon after Star Trek that’s cool," "Not that Star Trek: Insurrection or First Contact aren’t good titles, it’s just that everything that people are turned off about when it comes to Trek is represented by the colon." The movie's co-writers kept a running email chain of every potential proposed title, including many joke titles. Of those, Lindelof preferred "Star Trek: Transformers 4" best "because it's technically available."
• The title's lack of punctuation and grammatical ambiguity caused widespread confusion among the media and Trek fanbase, stirring discussion concerning the ramifications of interpreting the title's morphology, syntax, orthography, and catena structure. Comparisons were drawn between the unique grammatical structure of Star Trek Into Darkness and The Empire Strikes Back. Both publications and users across the Internet alike immediately questioned if "Trek was now a verb" and consequently if Into Darkness was no longer an implied subtitle to the series title Star Trek, but instead instead part of the larger noun phrase Trek Into Darkness. Jen Yamato of Movieline added that "it sounds like Step Into Liquid and Step Up 2 The Streets, which makes me think Chris Pine and Co. are headed for a dance-off with outer space surfers to the music of a British glam rock band. On top of that, dropping the colon forces us to comprehend "Trek" as both a noun and a verb, which makes my brain hurt. Who wants to go Star Trekkin' with J.J. Abrams?" Furthering the issue was Paramount's use of the movie title as a declarative phrase in its marketing synopsis, which began "In Summer 2012, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thrill that takes Star Trek Into Darkness." Simon Pegg commented on the movie's title saying "How do you get past the curse of the ":"? You get rid of it altogether. Trek ain't a noun, it's a verb. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS MAY 2013"
• The sheer verbosity of the debate over the lexical parsing of the title, and more specifically a lack of resolution concerning the orthography of the movie title, became the satirized target of author and former NASA roboticist Randall Munroe. In his webcomic xkcd titled 'Star Trek into Darkness', he lampooned the fact that various interpretations of the movie title had spawned over forty thousand words of futile deliberation on Wikipedia alone. One Wikipedia user even commented on absurdity of the resulting situation by stating it had become "a discussion about whether to include mention in the article about the discussion on Wikipedia, about whether to capitalize the letter 'i' in the title of the article. Is that not sheer madness?" The continuing confusion resulting from the title's grammatical ambiguity was further covered by news organizations worldwide. The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate over the title's semantic interpretation already spanned over two months and had become "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention from which no common sense can escape." In fact, evidence of widespread confusion regarding the syntax, morphology, and orthography of the title was already evident on TrekMovie.com when they broke the unconfirmed title on September 7th, thus dating the birth of the conversation to nearly six months prior to Randall Munroe's comical parody. Morris recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title."

I personally believe the previous text is encyclopedic, well sourced, accurate, neutral, brief, relevant, bizarre, lighthearted, and of interest to the casual reader. I firmly attest that random person could pick up this paragraph and fully understand the information being conveyed without requiring additional context and without being bombarded by irrelevant information It stays on topic (which is the movie title and resulting confusion regarding its lexical interpretation.) Xkcdreader (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Ooh, a new thing to argue about! Let the games begin! RAP (talk) 5:14 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised you didn't cite http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/594/02/. FallingGravity (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

haha, I avoided mentioning the i|I debate, because I find it irrelevant. The crux of the debate was whether Trek was a verb or if Into Darkness was a subtitle. The i|I feud was just a symptom of the larger confusion. If people think it is appropriate I could write an additional paragraph breaking down the correct catena structure when the title is used as a declarative statement. However, I am not sure if it counts as original research. If a newspaper wrote that 53% of a pie was eaten, it it fair for me to write about how 47% was not eaten? If a math book declares that 1+1=2, can I write that 2-1=1? Because we can use logic to deduce the structure of the catena, but I can't cite a source for it because it's common sense. If Into is a compound directional spatial preposition, Trek must be a verb, thus 'Trek Into' is by definitions a Verb Phrase. 'Trek Into Darkness' would logically become the Noun Phrase, in the same way "a walk in the woods" is a Noun Phrase. Maybe a linguistics expert could chime in and tell us if 'Trek Into Darkness' could qualify as a Verb Phrase. (Which would make star an adverb, which according to the dictionary is unprecedented.) On the other hand, 'Trek Into Darkness' could be a command the same way "walk into the woods" is a command! ... Anyway. If for the sake of temporary argument 'Trek Into Darkness' is a Noun Phrase. Noun Phrases are modified by adjectives, which makes Star an adjective, and yada yada we have our lexical tree. bada bing bada boom Xkcdreader (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Support I actually think this is very encyclopedic, interesting, and informative, enough so that I'm now convinced that the lack of a colon is very intentional and correct (whereas I was previously on the pro-colon side). I was not aware that the studio themselves had been hand-wringing over the title and how to avoid putting a colon in it, nor that this was being covered outside of Wikipedia before it even became an issue here, but Xkcdreader gives a pretty comprehensive overview of it here that I think deserves placement in the article. (And for the record, I think talking at any length about this debate we had here over capitalization does not deserve placement in the article, but the brief mention in the context of xkcd's coverage of the issue seems fine). --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Support I don't see any major problems with this. douts (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose This is a joke. The Wikipedia debate was NOT about subtitle/not subtitle/verb etc. It was about whether or not to capitalise "into" according to real world use and official sources and what policies/guidelines to follow. It therefore has no place being mentioned in an article about a FILM. The wider coverage given to the title in general by other sites is also, in my opinion, not worthy of inclusion in the article. The article should provide a general overview of the film for the layman and I personally don't think that most people give a flying fart about the fact that Trekkies' worlds were turned upside down by the lack of a colon. Its silly and irrelevant. Additionally, the debate blew up because a tiny minority of over-zealous Wiki-guardians of certain guidelines obdurately stonewalled everyone else and I would rather that we didn't publicise it any further on reputational grounds. Please drop this. Nsign (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. First: The very first page to release the title had 2500! comments about the title. Scroll down the page and read them. http://trekmovie.com/2012/09/07/exclusive-title-chose-for-star-trek-sequel/ How many are about the verbing of Trek or the lack of punctuation? A substantial portion of the discussion was concerning those two issues. Most of the discussion concerning the title, independent of wikipedia, was about the unconventional nature of the title structure. I can keep finding more and more sources that show the same discussion across the internet from BEFORE the debate even started on wikipedia. The source I am using is September 7th! Second: The unofficial recap of the debate is MOSTLY covering the issues I discussed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frungi/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_capitalization While it resulted in a debate about the i, the actual contention was the verbing/punctuation-removal and the implications. Third: Even if you believe the confusion part is unimportant, the first two of four paragraphs I wrote are SPECIFICALLY about the title and not the confusion. The third paragraph is about the confusion before it got to wikipedia. Why do you oppose the first 3 paragraphs? They are better than the current title section. Fourthly: protecting wikipedia's reputation is not a valid reason exclude content. Fifthly: I am not joking. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose in part. I see no real problem with the first two paragraphs (assuming the references to be reliable) because they address the titling of the movie and are accredited to the creators of the film and are on topic. However it's a stretch to claim "mass confusion", this (and other wording) is sensationalising and it is outside the realms of the topic - i.e. it's not about the film, is contravening WP:SUBJECT, and is bordering on WP:FANCRUFT. It is of little importance in terms of the movie, and is putting WP:UNDUE weight on the issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph three is very well sourced including journalists discussing the verbing of Trek. It was headline news on film sites. "J.J. Abrams' Star Trek sequel gets an officially weird title" http://www.blastr.com/2012/09/star-trek-2-gets-an-offic.php "Star Trek Sequel May Have a Title, But Nobody Knows What It Means" http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2012/09/10/star-trek-sequel-may-have-a-title-but-nobody-knows-what-it-means/ These articles are discussing that the title is confusing. The article that broke the story includes the text "Also noted in our earlier article, the title (by design) does not include a colon." I think you are trivializing something that was bigger news than you think it was. This discussion occurred across the internet, not just on wikipedia. If it wasn't a big deal it wouldn't have spawned a SIX MONTH debate over if it was a subtitle or partial phrase with a verb.

Furthermore this comes down to "does it make the article better?" Would your average movie fan read this article and say "oh that was interesting" or "hey that was kinda fun, im glad I read this" or would they say "man that really didn't belong in this article." It bothers me that you are deciding what people should be interested in, instead of letting them do it themselves. Adding brief information (a couple sentences) is not undue weight. It is not a book, it is a blurb. Undue weight implies the position that the title was weird was a minority position. I don't see any sites saying "this new title isn't weird." The fact that the title was confusing was the mainstream opinion. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Rob, I don't see how you can think it violates WP:SUBJECT when its about the title of the film, and therefore by extension is about the film. You might have a point about WP:FANCRUFT but it's a bit presumptuous to try to predict what people will find interesting or not. Also, as above, I would think a 6 month continuous debate across several sites would be notable enough to be mentioned. douts (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I will concede the second half is approaching WP:FANCRUFT. On the surface it appears trivial. But the fact that the series has NEVER used a title this way is notable, and multiple online news agencies agreed. It is closer to trivia, but this article does not have a trivia section, so the title section is most appropriate. I think that anyone who is viewing the Star Trek Into Darkness article will find it interesting to know that the name is unique to the series and contentious among the fanbase. I think it is notable enough to warrant mention. An extra couple sentences that some people find uninteresting won't collapse wikipedia's roof. It doesnt make the article worse. Plus, it is at the bottom of the article. The rules are all guidelines, and in this case the topic is interesting to enough people that the conversation is still going. I don't know how you could make the argument that no one cares, because it seems EVERYONE cares. I am almost always of the opinion that wikipedia should err on the side of verboseness rather than brevity. What one person finds interesting isn't what another person finds interesting. The criteria for inclusion shouldn't be based on the most stringent adherence to every rule. Finally, fancruft is generally poorly written and poorly cited, neither of which apply in this case. What I have written is notable fact with documentation to back it up. Xkcdreader (talk)

As far as WP:SUBJECT and Rob's "it's not about the film" argument, it is completely normal to include events related to a movie, that didn't effect the movie itself. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Shooting_in_Aurora.2C_Colorado That article even goes way off tangent and even covers the Gangster Squad Trailer. Please tell me what the Gangster Squad trailer being removed has to do with TDKR itself. Just because this debate took place on the internet and not in a IRL location such as time square, does not mean it didn't happen and shouldn't be recorded. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - That fact that you guys are arguing over what we were arguing about tells you that putting anything like this into the article is a silly idea that will only serve to make Wikipedia look even more ridiculous than it already does. This has not received "significant media coverage" by any conceivable definition of the phrase, so even if the section had some merit it would normally be excluded per WP:WEIGHT. The appropriate talk page header already notes what coverage there was, and there is no need to go any further than that. This article is about the film. Don't make it about Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The morphology and syntax of the title received widespread coverage across the Internet (and probably in Print. Does anyone have that issue of Entertainment Weekly from the 2nd/3rd week of September 2012?) prior to the debate picking up on Wikipedia. I have already provided six credible sources in paragraph three that discuss the issue. How many more do I need? How wikipedia looks is irrelevant to the issue and in fact wreaks of censorship. Paragraph 4 (the only paragraph to even mention the wikipedia debate) only says "was further covered by news organizations worldwide" which is fully accurate and sourced with coverage in London, England; Milan, Italy; and wherever Kevin Morris lives. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Scjessey, what we're suggesting IS NOT ABOUT WIKIPEDIA. It IS about the confusion the unconventional title has caused! The only reason wikipedia is even mentioned in the suggestion above is because it is one of several prime examples of said confusion. As Xkcdreader said, discussion about the title began long before the discussion here. The mere fact that people are still discussing it now, 6 months after it was announced is testament to that confusion. douts (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

douts I want to thank you for actually reading what I am saying. It feels like almost every other point people are making is some straw man that is completely irrelevant to my point. You're like the only person so far to acknowledge it isn't about Wikipedia. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no confusion about the title at all. It is "Star Trek Into Darkness" and that was never disputed by anyone. The studio debate about having or not having a colon is already covered in the article, and that is fine. The Wikipedia-related problem was that such a title caused an issue when MOS:CT was applied. That's about Wikipedia, not the film. And despite claims to the contrary, media coverage about the Wikipedia fuss is pathetic and unremarkable. So this needs to be dropped right now, because it's stupid. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you believe this is a testament to the likely fact you have yet to read a single source I cited backing up that claim. I cited six external pages, that predate the wikipedia debate, and make the claim that the title is confusing Xkcdreader (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Mostly oppose. It appears that there was some significant media coverage on the points that this film's title is a break from tradition, with some joking and speculation about its meaning and grammar. And this ambiguity did lead to the current Wikipedia kerfuffle and its media coverage. All this might merit a sentence in the "Title" section. But this campaigning by Xkcdreader strikes me increasingly as more provocative and pointy than productive. Bradd (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The original issue was bullheaded moderators using arbitrary rules to prevent anything from happening, and when I stand up against further blockades my "campaigning" for change makes you oppose. That makes me want to say fuck this place. You should be judging the content, not my pursuit of cultural change. This is the opposite of Be Bold/Boldly Go :(Xkcdreader (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Dude. You really need to </stress>. You are behaving like an SPA and apparently have become a little obsessed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yea I put together a contingency plan so that a full version can be linked to from #title. That was the exact advice I received from people. "It doesn't belong here." So I put it somewhere else. And now I'm criticized for that too? This goes so far against Be Bold, it isn't funny. The page is locked and I create a relevant well sourced paragraph and I can't be bold. The entire purpose of Be Bold is to take risks and then revert them if they severely break the rules. Everyone opposing this needs to reread Wikipedia:BITEY Xkcdreader (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

My wish to keep this out of the article due to concerns about reputational damage are, I'm well aware, probably not supportable by any policy here. The way this was held up due to bureaucratic and obstructive nonsense reflects badly on this project, and do any of us want that? However I will acknowledge that this isn't a good enough reason to dismiss your contribution. If this HAS to be mentioned then it at least needs to be much shorter - cut those paragraphs down to a single one. Its an interesting footnote to the film, nothing more. Nsign (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to hear we are getting somewhere! I agree some may find it too long. Normally things like this get a small mention and a link to a bigger article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Shooting_in_Aurora.2C_Colorado and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting. Is that a fair compromise? I cut it down for inclusion in Star Trek Into Darkness and have a unique page to discuss the issue in depth. The confusion brought on by the title will only get bigger as the movie comes closer to release. As for reputation: I think it is a sign of good character when a person (or in this case project) admits to and addresses its flaws head on, instead of obscuring them from visibility. Transparency is valuable and admirable. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, we are not "getting somewhere" at all. There are two separate issues here. The studio debate about what the title should be (notable), and the subsequent Wikipedia debate over whether or not to apply MOS:CT (not notable). The former relates to the film and should be covered. The latter relates to Wikipedia and has no place here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not addressing you hear, (you are not part of the "we") please don't disrupt my conversation with other people. Start your own bullet if you have something to add that has not been said. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's a fair compromise. But it definitely needs to be dramatically shorter. Nsign (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

can do, I will cut it way down Xkcdreader (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What is already in the article is fine. Perhaps a single extra sentence would be okay. But it must not be about the Wikipedia debate because that had nothing to do with the film. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)