Wikipedia

Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/Archive 6

< Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness
Latest comment: 11 years ago by -sche in topic Into is a compound preposition. The Title makes sense as a sentence fragment (noun phrase), because Star is an adjective.
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Summary of the i / I discussion

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments13 people in discussion

I've tried to read though the huge amount written on i VS I but can't seem to find the crux of the argument for and against. I'm wondering if someone could summarize it, as it has now become an issue on to itself.

If I understand it right, the i people support i because the rules of Wikipedia, as reflected in the manual of style, demand it. The I people support I because the official title, as reflected in promotional material, demand it.

Am I incorrect? Or is this a basic summary? Nickjbor (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

See #Summary of arguments, also reported here. Frungi, you're famous! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)A summary may be found here. In short, you are correct, though I'm wondering what ever happened to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:IAR, and WP:COMMONSENSE. If the guidelines on capitalization are law, then so are those. Is it not enough that the studio wrote the name some way that we can write without any sort of special coding? Honestly, this make us look the people Vogons make fun for being overly bureaucratic to the point that it disrupts this site's operation. This is not Berlin for the grammar Nazis, this is an encyclopedia. But no, we have to come to a compromise that makes us look a bunch of idiots arguing over every bureaucratic little thing to look like we're smart and have meaningful lives, because we have lost our our damn minds. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, writing a lower-case "into" here is really hard to interpret as anything other than neurotic rule-following taken to the point of self-parody. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
NB: this has gone far beyond the point of self-parody. - Dravecky (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I would agree that debating for 6 weeks whether the letter i should be capitalized or not is a sign of some kind of psychological problem. But they were able to get themselves in an xkcd cartoon so perhaps that says something. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.179.21.226 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You know what they say: If you're crazy enough, you'll become famous enough to become eccentric. 71.203.170.181 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
And we've gone public: xkcd Leejoe Schar (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
As an outsider who has skimmed (but, sorry, not understood every nuance of) the whole protracted debate, I get the impression that it boils down to this:
  • Argument in favor of "Into": it's the way it's usually written -- by the director, the producers, the studio, imdb, and every other website except Wikipedia.
  • Argument in favor of "into": it's what our reading of WP:MOS says the Wikipedia article title absolutely must be, the movie's actual title and the rest of the world be damned. We're tired of arguing about it, we're super stubborn so we're not going to change it, we came up with this excellent compromise (wherein we admit right there in the lead sentence that "Into" is how the rest of the world usually writes it), and we're really annoyed that Randall Munroe sent a bunch of newcomers over here to stir things up.
I'm sure I'll get roundly flamed for badly misrepresenting one or both arguments, but again, that's how it looks to this outsider who didn't have the benefit of living through the forty thousand words of debate in real time. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why you should be flamed, that was an accurate representation of the arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I still find myself quite unbelieving that anyone would rather capitalise the title in such a way as to make the logical acronym STD. Surely that would be something to move away from? 82.0.149.167 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


(ec) Why are we annoyed at getting newcomers sent our way? We have an editor retention problem. How about we show those newcomers our best smiles and welcome them. :-)

Also, if the MOS is so stupid as to force us to mis-write a movie title, then the MOS is wrong, and should be changed, obviously. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


Actually, there is a third line of thinking: If Wikipedia's manual of style's capitalization rules were to be changed, both – the however-official press material and Wikipedia's guidelines – would advocate "Into". HOWEVER, for that to happen, there first would have to be found a corresponding authoritative guideline, which you then could present and propose over here (if you go there, please first familiarize yourself with the topic and read carefully what's already been written, so as not to repeat stuff that's been asked and stated several times over). Then it's for the community to decide whether or not to adopt those alternative rules. Personally, I don't mind "into", as it's just "in" and "to" put together (two words that are lowercased in quite every style guide when written individually), but find some other titles weird when styled according to the current capitalization prescriptions (all explained in the linked discussion). BUT this is not about my idiosyncracies nor yours, nor is it about a single film title (at least it isn't if you don't either reject the notion of a house style wholesale or believe that it must be subordinate to other guides or policies). Instead, a consensus solution based on reliable sources should be sought. NB: That means the outcome could also be that after all is said and done the capitalization rules don't change at all. So if you have something to contribute – a fresh perspective, specialist knowledge, access to not yet examined sources – chime in over at WT:MoS. Don't bother if you're not willing to put the necessary time, thought and energy into it. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
No, actually, "in to" according to WP:MOS should be capitalized as "In to" as it is a compound (first word of a compound preposition is capitalized). The same thing is true if we have a «PropNoun into Noun» structure as the preposition requires a verb (even if it is not written, therefore an "implied verb" exists) in which case "into" usually becomes part of a phrasal verb (such as "takes into" "goes into" "treks into"). This is because "into" is a directional spatial adposition. This means that it can only be combined with verbs of motion. Thus according to current WP:MOS, must be capitalized (all prepositions of phrase verbs are capitalized). So assuming "Star Trek Into Darkness" is all one phrase, all grammatical deconstructions of that phrase, according to WP:MOS, must have "into" capitalized as "Into." — al-Shimoni (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Capitalization: Official Website and Publications

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

After reading most of the long and heated debate about the issue of capitalizing "into" and the debate as to if "Into Darkness" constitutes a subtitle or not, I decided to find official publications from the parent company, affiliates and those associated with the film in order to verify the title. After all, what is official should be represented as such in this encyclopedia. However, I do know that this conflict exists elsewhere in the world of entertainment and has been tackled in this encyclopedia. Such conflict is evident in Next to Normal which is often stylized as "next to normal" for artistic and promotional purposes. However a quick search of Next to Normal will show that in most cases, as is on the site for the official production, the words "Next" and "Normal" are capitalized when not in a stylized format. This is also how it is billed with the licensing company, MTI. When the title "Star Trek Into Darkness" was confirmed by Entertainment Weekly, they reported the lack of a colon (although acknowledging that it is implied) and also capitalized "Into" as it was confirmed to them by their sources involved with the film. As such, the official website, as seen in the title and info of its webpage, has also chosen to capitalize the word "Into" in the title. This represents not a stylization of the title, but how the title is officially structured, much like Next to Normal.

As mentioned earlier, the colon in the title is implied, but, unlike the word "Into", it has been removed for stylization purposes. As Mr. Vary states in his article for entertainment weekly, "The moniker further differentiates Abrams’ reboot of the venerable sci-fi franchise from the earlier Trek movies, which either went the roman-numeral-and-subtitle route... or eschewed the number for just a colon-ized subtitle." The use of "colon-ized" is recognition that "Into Darkness" is, in fact, a subtitle. However, this subtitle is not "colon-ized" like Star Trek movies of the past. That colon has been removed for stylization. Since "Into Darkness" is indeed a subtitle, the word "Into" should be capitalized as such. Elpato22 (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

When we quote something, we do not alter the quote. How are we not quoting the title when we use it? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that when we use the title we are quoting the title. Therefore, considering what I have stated above, as the title is "Star Trek Into Darkness" (Implied colon, capital "I"), the title must be formatted as such if we are to quote it correctly. Elpato22 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
We're not quoting the title directly, we're writing a documentation of it. The debate (in RM form) has been closed by admin now, as it was decided that continuing this would get us nowhere at the moment. drewmunn talk 21:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Except that new debate can (and should) be sparked, because we're doing a shitty job of documenting how it's actually spelled, and new debate is being inspired by the rest of the internet pointing out the sheer bureaucratic stupidity of the supposed "compromise" that amounts to "This is what we're gonna call it, even though it's really spelled this way." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Complete outsider comment: the current title, with no cap I for 'into', looks stupid.

I used to edit Wikipedia a hell of a lot (100,000+ edits) but, I gave up - due to these types of ridiculous argument.

Still, at least I got a laugh out of this one, via xkcd. 88.104.7.119 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone hear this talk page was featured on xkcd?? ;-) I'm another user who doesn't edit much anymore because of this kind of silliness. I'm glad you have reached a compromise solution, but it seems like a compromise for talk page editors' sake rather than for readers' sake: I think the readers will be scratching their heads as to why we aren't writing it as it's usually written. Fletcher (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about "compromise for talk page editors' sake". Unfortunately, Wikipedia being what it is today, and WP:IAR notwithstanding, sometimes Wikipedia has to have the wrong version. Fortunately, in this case, the effect is likely to be temporary; after things cool down a bit (perhaps in as little as 24 hours) I expect that a proper move to the obviously-correct title will be made. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother reading the above discussion; the outcome is so obviously wrong that anyone who agrees with it ought to be ashamed of themselves and needs to step back and reconsider their participation in this project. First, our own precedents don't support this; see Straight Outta Lynwood and the contentious discussion in 2007 about that title (cf [1] for a taste). If following the MOS requires an absurd, unsupportable outcome (short version: if the MOS is an ass) then we ignore it and do the right thing. We, as in the project, look like idiots. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Apart from Straight Outta Lynwood, other conflicting precedents of note with 4-letter prepositions include Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Bullets Over Broadway, Reign Over Me, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, It Came Upon the Midnight Clear, Once Upon a Time, Once Upon a Time in America, The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane, and The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorencollins (talk • contribs) 17:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unto?

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Another suggestion I might add would be to rename it to "Star Trek Unto Darkness". That should end all debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoorayForZo1dberg (talk • contribs) 23:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. No offence, but that is a ridiculous idea cos it would completely change the meaning of the title. douts (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ridiculous idea? No offence, but this whole discussion is ridiculous! HoorayForZo1dberg (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
And before that XKCD comic strip attracted a load of a drive-by editors who were too damn lazy to read the discussion we had reached a sensible compromise and agreed to leave this be for a few months or until some new evidence either way could be found. douts (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
There is plenty of evidence for the uppercase I, there is no evidence (only bureaucratic application of guidelines in sheer denial of reality) for the lowercase i. Consensus can change. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm well aware consensus can change, and I know there's evidence supporting a cap-I. I'm in favour of the move myself, but things need to be left for a while to allow everyone to calm down a bit (ideally a week, bare minimum) before another move request is initiated. And besides, consensus isn't likely to change unless some new argument that hasn't already been discussed above crops up. So it's best for everyone involved to leave it be for a while. douts (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
This has gone on for months. In all that time, no real evidence for the lowercase i has come up. It is well past time for a change. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't just go with the obvious, common-sense title: Star Trek Reboot 2: Antimatter Boogaloo. I'll go ahead and move the page. (WP:BOLD!) -- Narsil (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone needs to redefine "lazy". "too damn lazy to read the discussion" or perhaps got better things to do than read over 9000 words of nonsense. I think "Unto" is more worthy of discussion. Antimatter Boogaloo is also a nice alternative.HoorayForZo1dberg (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Unto and Into are 2 completely words with completely different meanings. The title of the film is Star Trek Into Darkness, NOT Star Trek Unto Darkness. douts (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Douts, it's obvious that he's joking. Ryan Vesey 00:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. If you're redefining lazy, then there should be no problem with substituting "into" with "unto". Besides, they're not completely different; in fact, they're 75% the same! HoorayForZo1dberg (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree with slight modification. I think we should change it to Star Wars Unto Darkness. I personally like Star Wars better, and I don't think it's hard to see why we should prefer this. Even George Takei started out acting for Star Trek and later decided to switch to voice acting for Star Wars, which should tell you something. -- 173.105.255.47 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I LOL'D I honestly got a pretty good kick out of this. It sums up everything this thread has been through. Basically, "Screw it, let's just rename the movie." Elpato22 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Usually written as..." >> "also written as"

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

At the risk of getting flamed from both sides, I changed "Usually written as..." to "also written as" in the opening sentence. "Usually" smacks of WP:OR and we don't need a verify dispute in the opening line. I'm neutral on the dispute apart from this. Manning (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The only place it is written with a lowercase i is in this article. "Always written as" would be more appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Strictly speaking it should be "always, except on Wikipedia because we're dumb like that" or perhaps just "always" if the former is pointy. I'm on the verge of eliminating this farce and having this article match reality. If the MOS requires a contrary outcome then it's wrong and should be changed after we've fixed on obvious problem in mainspace. Style guides exist to serve articles and not the reverse. Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I prefer Mackensen's proposal, but I'd be willing to settle with usually. I've done a search and haven't pulled up any other source that uses the lower case. Ryan Vesey 01:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Manning, in a normal situation I'd call your edit an acceptable bold one; however, you made the edit through protection (I'm not sure if you were aware). As such, consensus should be sought first. Can you undo your edit until you can achieve consensus? Ryan Vesey 01:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • There cannot be consensus to change reality. Clearly, and I hope I'll be forgiven for saying so, this high-profile article was given over to editors who fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of the project and believed that we were creating a Manual of Style. They were then enabled by an administrator whom I otherwise respect who had the opportunity to end the madness and took the weak way out. The project has now been brought into severe disrepute. To quote Golbez, this is why we can't have nice things. Manning's edit should stand. Mackensen (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm thoroughly confused by your response to me. Having just previously argued that "always" was appropriate, you state that an edit for which he cannot achieve consensus, and that he made through protection, should stand. Is one of us misunderstanding something? Ryan Vesey 01:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
        • No, I don't think so. I'm saying that the present state of the article is so obviously unacceptable and disreputable that editing through protection is an acceptable. Yes, yes, I'm aware of m:Wrong version. What we've got here is a situation wherein a horrible, bureaucratic argument devoid of any common sense was allowed to persist beyond any usefulness and is now causing active harm. Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
          • The entire point of full protection is the existence of a content dispute. Administrators are handed the tools because the community has deemed them worthy of judging the outcome of discussions. Administrators are not allowed to make any edit they want to a fully protected article. This wasn't a minor edit, this didn't deal with any pressing concerns such as copyvio, this edit changed the meaning of the sentence. What confuses me most about your argument is that you seem to disagree with his edit, yet you support his ability to make it. Ryan Vesey 01:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
            • His edit was a good start, but we can do better. Further, administrators can and do blow it. Happens all the time. We don't sacrifice articles on the altar of process. What's called for here is a moment of clarity, not more bureaucracy. Mackensen (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
              In defense of process: there's nothing wrong with process, per-se. But process is like a chainsaw. You can't just go around waving it blindly! Process is a powerful tool. Use it responsibly. You have to use the right process, you use it in the right way, hold it firm and steady, and keep an eye on it in case it kicks, blows up, or tries to eviscerate you. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed all the weaselly nonsense from the intro. If someone wants to produce a source that says anyone OTHER THAN A SMALL CABAL OF WIKIPEDIA EDITORS thinks the title is rendered with a lowercase "i" then we can change it. Seriously people, this is the worst thing I've seen in years. I won't move the article, yet, because that makes a mess and this talk page is active, but it should move as soon as possible. Mackensen (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Note to Ryan - Nope, sorry, I missed that the page was under admin-only protection (I saw the pink banner but didn't read closely enough, assumed it was run-of-the-mill PP). Apologies to all for my unintended abuse of admin rights. Manning (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Has it already been proposed that MOS:CT deserves an update?

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion

I haven't heard any arguments for "into" that don't boil down to "because the manual of style says so". But the manual of style is only a house rule, and the reason there is no universally-accepted rule in English for this is because of all the situations like this in which absolute rules strongly clash with common sense. (Alternatively, this also seems like exactly the sort of situation that Ignore all rules was made for.) 142.1.229.55 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

All we need is a clear statement that WP:COMMONNAME takes preference over anything else. Ryan Vesey 01:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I suggested above that the MOS be fixed after the article was, in case there was still confusion about which is more important. Also, this is totally what IAR is for. Mackensen (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#COMMONNAME should take precedence. It's a small change, and only resolves part of what is probably a much bigger problem, but it solves this problem specifically. Ryan Vesey 01:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Since we have quickly learned that COMMONNAME in fact already had precedence, that was a short discussion. O:-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Ok, So. Now that we have established that the current title violates policy ... well, let's wait and see if anyone finds a mistake in the reasoning for a minute at least ;-)
Frankly, it's an open secret that the MOS isn't even a consensus document. It's the worst example extant in Wikipedia of centralized documents being used to push policy in a top-down fashion rather than documenting what's arisen organically, and it shouldn't ever be held to override any legitimate, practice-derived policy or guideline. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The worst part of the "because the manual of style says so" argument is that it is flat out wrong. The manual of style SAYS to CAPITALIZE COMPOUND PREPOSITIONS. Into is a compound preposition. Thus the rules state it should be capitalized. The only people arguing for lower case are those that are incorrectly reading the manual of style.Xkcdreader (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I do no think that a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#COMMONNAME should take precedence is appropriate. That section was created to advertise (and ongoing) RfC on whether the MOS rules should have precedence over other (see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal -- more input for other editors to help create a consensus are of course welcome)

The relevant link in this case is WP:LOWERCASE which like WP:COMMONNAME is part of the AT policy page, so the appropriate discussions forum for changes to guidance over this issue should be addressed to Wikipedia talk:Article titles. -- PBS (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That section directs you to the guideline WP:NCCAPS for more guidance on capitalization of proper nouns. Said guidance was a good chunk of the arguments against this article’s current title. —Frungi (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey: Lookie Here:

Use Common Sense! It will have occasional exceptions! It's all there right at the tippy-top of the style manual. There are some real concrete thinkers on here. Whew. WHat about DGAF and all those other things. People, to quote William Shatner: "Get a life!" No hazmats (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

@Frungi you wrote "Said guidance was a good chunk of the arguments against this article’s current title", yes it does, as does the article titles policy page. But that is not germane to the point I was making. The point I was making was that this is not an issue where in the first instance guidance should be sought from MOS, the place to look for guidance is in the article titles policy and its naming conventions (guidelines). It is widely agreed that naming conventions can supplement and enhanced the policy page but they can not contradict it (if they do then that guidance should be placed to one side in favour of what the policy says). -- PBS (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (again)

Latest comment: 11 years ago73 comments26 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Snow closing this as endorsing the page move, because the supports are coming down faster than the foot of snow I got last night, and there is a clear consensus to keep the title at its current name. Can we move past this ridiculous chapter in our history now? While the media coverage of this is rather entertaining, it's not exactly beneficial to our image as an encyclopedia. Let's all go work on a couple articles (my nomination: Argentine–Chilean naval arms race) and do something that matters. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to previous issues with the WP:RM process, the current process in use at this location is WP:BRD. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek into Darkness → Star Trek Into Darkness – The title with the uppercased i is unambiguously the common name for this movie.  Ryan Vesey 02:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Due respect to you as a person but I don't respect the RM procedure (unless something changed, they weren't required by policy before). Even if I did respect RM, we've had 2 here already in recent history, one blew up spectacularly (quelle surprise) and one was speedy closed. Can we hold off 24 hours or not run this particular process at all? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


Actually, on further thought. I'm stripping the RM tag. 7 days till closure? That's against WP:COMMON sense in this case. We're not going to do another RM here. I'm just not entirely ready to move the page myself. I don't have time to read through the reasoning to see if there's some babies in with the bathwater I should know about. If anyone else does have time, do please give it a whirl! --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

An RM technically goes for 7 days, but many have been closed early when consensus seemed obvious. Ryan Vesey 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've repeatedly threatened to execute this move so I've now done so. I believe this is in keeping with the BRD cycle and the page is not currently protected. I will not engage in any edit-warring over the matter. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait just a damn minute, please - We had a move discussion and there was no consensus for a move to take place. Anyone deciding to move the article without first establishing a consensus to do so is making a grave mistake. I have strong objections to the way certain editors have behaved in the last few hours. One thing that concerns me is that Kim Bruning changed MOS:CT and then started talking about renaming this article to match the change. That's not appropriate behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    Almost. The applicable Policy is at WP:COMMONNAME. My slight alteration updated the MoS page with my understanding. This should famous last words be fairly uncontroversial. See also the relevant talk page. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Do I have to bring up RED? RAP (talk) 13:32 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that an acronym? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I feel it may be relevant. We're talking about how things are written. We're talking the practice of titles with undercase lettering, yet films like RED are fullcaps. Just saying, apples and oranges. RAP (talk) 15:25 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, Scjessey. The disgrace is that this argument lasted for so long, Reddit and The Daily Dot have brought it up, making us all look so stupid. The disgrace is that this argument lasted 2 months. RAP (talk) 5:35 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I've restored the official move request despite the fact that the article has already been moved. If another admin happens to move it back, the discussion will still be ongoing. If it is not, we can at least show that consensus was achieved after the fact. There's a number here who think that completely disregarding process is okay because a long discussion never reached consensus and they are certain in the correctness of their statements. I believe the same things as they do; however, disregarding process creates a mess and I want no part in it. Ryan Vesey 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think that following process means what you think it means. One thing it doesn't mean is to actually MAKE a mess, thanks.
    People need to use processes and policies as tools in an intelligent manner. Something which has quite evidently not been done here. (else folks like Mackensen and myself wouldn't have to come around and fix it. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC) A process is a tool for people. People are not a tool for process :-P
  • Comment. Just so it's clear, I support my own move and believe it ought to be uncontroversial to use WP:COMMONNAME for an article title. That's a policy. It's been a policy for ages. Claims that the MOS trumps it are wrong-headed and there was never any consensus that the MOS did so. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    Nobody said anything about MOS:CT trumping WP:COMMONNAME. Our contention was that "Into Darkness" was not a subtitle and was, therefore, subject to the longstanding MOS:CT guidelines on prepositions. There are DOZENS of compositions with articles on Wikipedia that follow exactly the same guideline, but you have allowed a CARTOON dictate that an exception be made, ignoring the existing consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • All the cartoon did was inform people of the dispute. I for one had no idea this discussion was taking place. The cartoon didn't offer a legitimate suggestion as to what the title should be. Ryan Vesey 03:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Mackensen hasn't done anything of the sort, of course. :-). My recommendation is to read up on the current process in use, and act as you deem appropriate.:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't act as appropriate because after moving the page against consensus, the problem was compounded with the additional abuse of an unnecessary page protection. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Expires in 24 hours though. That said, if you want, we can pretend you reverted if you like (though it's not mandatory to revert before opening a discussion section) , and you can open a discussion section below with your reasoning for the revert (definitely mandatory, if you want to pursue this at least :-) ). --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Question to Scjessey. Are those other articles named inconsistently with standard use? Do they use a spelling, capitalization, punctuation, etc. that no reliable source uses? —Frungi (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    It's not really something I should be expanding upon on this talk page. Let's just say that MOS:CT has existed more or less in the same form for ages, so literally hundreds of composition titles (not just movies, but music, scholarly pamphlets, etc.) have had the guideline applied to them. It's been like that for years. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    You seem to be avoiding the question—does that guideline conflict with WP:COMMONNAME in any of those examples, as was the case here with “into Darkness”? Because it’s kinda seeming like you’re objecting just to object. —Frungi (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    I am not avoiding it. I just think this isn't the right place to discuss it. I think MOS:CT absolutely can conflict with WP:COMMONNAME (although a recent undiscussed edit changes that for future articles), and as such it has left a legacy where hundreds of articles are now probably mistitled. This debate has been very useful for the wider debate going on at MOS:CT about what to do with prepositions in composition titles. It is a shame that the bigger problem could not have been fully resolved before resolving the matter here. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I Love You. I would like to hereby proclaim my undying love for Mackensen for doing the right thing, editing the page, and moving it to fit the appropriate title. I commend the user for also backing it up with sound logic and reason proving the edit to be correct, as the majority has known all along. Hopefully this made-up controversy will die out sometime soon. Elpato22 (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Good move. To those who are objecting, concerned that this came too soon after the previous two move requests and without any new information to change the argument, there was something new: a bunch of fresh eyeballs, who came to a different consensus. And to those who are concerned that this amounted to "canvassing", let me point out that, although many of the fresh eyeballs are surely here solely due to the xkcd comic, that comic did not lobby either for "Into" or "into". The influx of new eyeballs did not come predisposed for one conclusion or the other, just for finding the right one. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Report the movie title as wrong to Google when you search for it and Wikipedia comes up on the right, https://www.google.com/search?q=Star+Trek+Into+Darkness Click on "Feedback" at the bottom of the Wikipedia section and click the title as "Wrong".

  • No, it doesn't. With who or what am I wheel-warring? What did I revert? WP:RM is a process which doesn't even have policy status. If you're right then every deletion process that gets escalated to a speedy would be wheel-warring. Please explain further or withdraw the accusation. Best, Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not quite. You do have to let people at least take a crack at it under WP:BRD, or else we're really smoked, right? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC) And if you have enough reasons under BRD to rv, you can go ahead and give it a shot. ps. RM is not a policy.
In BRD, reversion of good faith edits is the negative hurdle to be overcome, not a required part of the process.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It's hardly a good faith edit, it's an incredibly controversial one, as the wealth of discussion above can attest to. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
A controversial edit (if that) can still be made in good faith.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC) ps. accusing people of acting in bad faith never ends well. Would you consider withdrawing that part of your statement, or qualifying it as 'may at times appear to be bad faith' or etc. ? :-)
  • Comment - User:xkcd did not advocate one "into" or "Into" in his comic (Jan 30), but rather commented on it, admins did not use his comic to dictate an action. However, his comment did bring the debate to a broader number of admins, and those admins have pointed out the WP policy that seems to have been missed in this long discussion (a policy that trumps the MOS). Hopefully, with thanks to Randall, maybe we can soon put an end to this debate, shelve it in an archive, and actually discuss the content of the article, not the capitalization of it. Thanks, Mackensen and any other admin who has stepped in to kill this ongoing debate here, on the MOS pages (where it had bled into weeks ago), and elsewhere on WP. And thanks goes to Randall for ultimately bringing this to the attention of the above admins. — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support/Comment: If anyone disagrees with the current, capitalized title, I hope that they choose to leave it at this name, which seems to have majority support, and start an RM to move it back. Even though I think WP:SNOW might apply to that RM ever getting consensus. —Frungi (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: find one official source that uses the lowercase i. The title is spelled with an uppercase I, period, end of discussion. The MOS does not trump reality, it is merely a suggestion to keep things uniform when there is nothing else to base a decision on. Reality is the best reason to make a decision. There were plenty of people giving policy based reasons for the upper case I, consensus is still consensus if a bunch of wikilawyers don't like it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't you mean Parkinson's Law of Triviality? Fletcher (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
No exception for adages, sorry. Murphy's law will have to stay lowercased, sources and WP:COMMONNAME be damned to hell. Oh, and style guides that recommend capitalization of Murphy's Law can also go to hell [[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]]. Wikipedia knows better than reliable sources. I am not bitter at all. No, really. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
'Into' is just a preposition. Compound prepositions are when you combine multiple words, like "according to". Fletcher (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect, Into is a compound preposition compounding the words in and to. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/594/02/ Xkcdreader (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support All of the authoritative sources we have are saying "Into Darkness", with a capital. This is clear WP:COMMONNAME territory, even without counting the definition of it as an implied subtitle by various publications and as a subtitle by the creator. Seriously, guys, stop trying to change history without even having the sources for it. Having it uncapitalized is pure WP:OR. SilverserenC 05:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I made a comment above, but did not at that moment express my Support for the move that has now been done. I so now state that I support the move to "Star Trek Into Darkness". — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment With all this arguing, you might as well make it, "574R 7r3K 1n70 D4rKn355". Can't people just leave things alone until there is a 100% definitive say one way or another? I mean, I personally think "Into" is correct, but I wouldn't keep an edit war going over it 70.73.185.165 (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, preferably with colon as per the early-closed move request above. Came here from xkcd, etc. Yes, it's normally bad form to run a Requested Move immediately after a previous one closed. However, not capitalizing "into" is so silly that WP:IAR applies. Yes, prepositions are normally not capitalized in titles. Except when the aesthetics are bad. Really, that's pretty much the rule, author's choice, capitalizing or not capitalizing the small words is a choice on what to emphasize. "into", being the only lowercase in such a version, looks bad. Paramount apparently agrees. It's as simple as that. (If Wikipedia wants to shy away from crazier stylings like Se7en, fine, but for a case like this, the rule in English really is "author does whatever fits.") SnowFire (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support BUT DO NOT ADD A COLON AND OPEN ANOTHER CAN OF WORMS - No official source uses a colon so neither should we. This has gone on long enough now largely due to those who have slavishly pointed to the MOS as justification for obdurately opposing all logical arguments to fixing the title to its proper form. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias describe the real world - if not, what are they for? This should never have gone on this long and some editors need to examine their behaviour and the image they project to the world of how Wikipedians operate. I would also suggest that the flood of "new editors" currently invading this talk page because they've seen a cartoon or whatever read thoroughly all previous discussions on this matter before rehashing old ground, which some are clearly not doing. Now let's all go away, take a breath and stick Wrath of Khan on. All will be well. Nsign (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with comment on colons For consistency with all other Star Trek articles on Wikipedia, all of which were styled without a colon in their promotional materials but use a colon here, I think the colon really does belong in the end. But, as Nsign says above, this has gone on long enough for now, it's at a respectable stable point that's not making people go "WTF?", and the colon conversation can be brought up later. So, let's be happy with this giant leap in the right direction and take the last small step later after we've all had a rest. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC) (inserted here due to edit conflict)
  • Oppose, but also I give up. This move has been bulldozed through by a bunch of fanboys who clearly have no regard for Wikipedia processes, conventions and practices. How the f--- has this been moved? An editor claims WP:BRD, but The bold, revert, discuss cycle requires that the page should be in the original state while the discussion takes place. And then someone has changed the MOS:CT guideline to fit in with this move, which is despicable and WP:POINTY. Given the lengthy ongoing discussion on this, and the recent media attention, it shows a complete lack of respect on behalf of the nominator for Wikipedia, its guidelines and its diligent editors. Remember, WP:NORUSH. Poor show chaps, poor show. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and note the capitalisation in this article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't throw your toys out of the pram. Dismissing this as being bulldozed through by a bunch of fanboys is simple petulance. The conventions and practices in this case were unsatisfactory to a clear majority of users and several wikipedia policies, from common name to the MOS itself, allowed for exceptions to be made where appropriate. The title of the film is Star Trek Into Darkness and it should be titled Star Trek Into Darkness here. Those who insist that the hallowed MOS cannot in fact be bent, even though more than one policy says it can, are damaging wikipedia's public image and the wider world has now unfortunately started to notice. And "no rush" my arse, this has dragged on for weeks. The article is now correct and this needs to end now. Nsign (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone has rushed to move it in order to influence the discussion so we are now discussing from a different position. If people don't like the practices they should seek to change them. And don't forget that there are two sides to every argument. To claim it is the people sticking up for Wikipedia's style guides that are damaging Wikipedia's reputation, is an accusation that could equally be applied to the fanboys. Don't forget, per WP:NCCAPS: "Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility." --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Being bold was the only way there was ever going to be some kind of resolution on this. The article is correct. I see no arguments from anywhere other than the handful of stubborn editors who will hold fast to the MOS mast as it sinks in a sea of common sense that the "fanboys" have damaged anything by ensuring this article reflects real-world usage, rather than a stubborn and unsatisfactory application of a flexible guideline. Nsign (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Bold, REVERT, then discuss. That's how it works. And have you not read the intro to WP:NCCAPS? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I have and its a guideline thats also subject to common sense in its own words, and common name trumps it as policy anyway. Take it further Rob, report it to whoever, stamp your feet - nothing changes the fact that the editor has done the right thing and titled the article correctly. Nsign (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Revert is not mandatory. Reversion is the Bad Thing That Sometimes Happens that you want to fix, not the Lovely Thing you deliberately should do.
We're already discussing now. That part is good. Someone hijacked the discussion and made it into a bleeping RM thread. That part is bad. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC) meh, you win some, you lose some
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reliable(?) source on the title question

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion

Can we consider the Daily Dot to be a reliable source? If so, this article explicitly addresses whether “Into” should be capitalized. I believe this brings the total to at least one source explicitly for capitalizing, and zero against, and this should settle the debate for now. (Ha, I actually typed this while the page was being moved, and got a redirect page when I tried to post it. And then it double posted when I tried again.) —Frungi (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Dot is not necessarily a reliable source, however it basically outlines the common sense reasoning of why it should be "Into Darkness." It seems people just got caught up in technicalities, and overanalyzed the situation. Elpato22 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
As I've mentioned somewhere earlier, the Daily Dot has the sort of editorial oversight we require for a journalistic source to be reliable. However, how the studio spelled it should be a valid enough source. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your second point in that it doesn’t matter (for article titling purposes) what style the studio uses if no one actually uses it in practice. But that’s obviously not the case here, anyway. —Frungi (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I agree it wouldn't be the final source, but in the absence of all other information, that would be a valid source. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is startrekmovie.com not considered a reliable source? They have the capitalized "i" in the fine print at the bottom of their main page. Mistrx75 (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It’s a primary source; in general, secondary sources are more reliable. Also, see my previous post. —Frungi (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Any small group of people can put together a website and call one of their number the editor; that doesn't give it a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". We really need documentation from something that's published in real life as well as online. We most definitely should depend on the moviemaker's own website, regardless of how it capitalises it — this is a good example of WP:SELFSOURCE. Nyttend (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Is it reliable that they spell it that way" is not a meaningful question. The meaningful question is "are they well reputed". Do others care what they publish? (I think the answer is yes). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we can consider as reliable a source that seriously argues that the preposition must be capitalized "because Star Trek is a noun" (so what? you can still have a trek into something, a voyage up something, etc.) That said, it seems pretty stupid to me to insist on keeping the preposition in lower case just because of some internal convention that someone's dreamed up. If the convention is causing us to go against what common sense dictates and what the rest of the world is doing, then just change (or make an exception to) the convention. All this argument is making Wikipedia (and more significantly, Wikipedians) look silly. Victor Yus (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Given that everyone from Time to The New York Times spells it cap-I, I'm not sure what difference it makes if it a little-known website also spells it cap-I. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It’s not that they’re another source that uses a capital ‘I’. It’s that they explicitly say to use a capital ‘I’. A while back, I asked what would be necessary to allow an exception to the MOS, and one editor said that this would have to happen, and it has. —Frungi (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Doesn't Paramount get to be the final arbiter on how to spell the title of their own movie? You wouldn't try to claim that it should be spelled "E. E. Cummings" simply because standard English grammar requires the capitalization of proper names, would you? Instead, you'd defer to the spelling the person has chosen for themselves. Since the official web site of the movie, http://www.startrekmovie.com, lists the title as "Star Trek Into Darkness" (check the title in the browser tab or, if you can't see it, view the HTML source and look at the <TITLE> tag), then the question is settled. Paramount spells it with a capital I and no colon. Thus, that's the way it is to be spelled. --Rrhain
You're confusing spelling with styling. See many millions of words on this exact subject above. Anyway, this discussion is something we're steering clear of at the moment; we've only just come to something of a conclusion. So, be warned on pain of trout... drewmunn talk 17:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Colon usage: should we use "Star Trek: Into Darkness" or "Star Trek Generations"?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Title has been decided above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

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

I think the past discussion has led to a capitalization decision on the grounds that "Into Darkness" is a subtitle rather than an indivisible part of a larger sentence. This brings the title in line with previous titles. Now, Star Trek promotional materials say a colon should not be used to separate the two parts. But in fact this turns out to be a stylistic decision that affects the whole film lineup, rather than just STID: for example, startrek.com (click on Movies) lists Star Trek Generations or Star Trek Nemesis without a colon.

Since Wikipedia usually tends to favor internal consistency over faithfulness to the author's style, shouldn't we consider naming the page Star Trek: Into Darkness? Alternatively, we could bring other page names in line with the new, preferred style by dropping the colon (Star Trek Nemesis). Finally, the third option is to just leave everything as-is so that pages would be named after the preferred style at the time of release, and frozen from that moment on.

What do you think? --Minordeifyme (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think no one wants to go there. We should NOT add a colon to this article - it isn't used by any official sources. I wouldn't object if the colon was removed from the other films if they aren't used in official sources, but I'm just not going there. Nsign (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking along these lines: On the official website, "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" is the last movie to be written with a colon, and all preceding movies have been written with a colon. "Star Trek Generations" is the first movie to be written without one, and all succeeding movies have been written without a colon. Clearly, the policy change from using to not using a colon was therefore initiated with the release of Star Trek Generations and Wikipedia should reflect this. Another consideration is that if the title of this article "Star Trek Into Darkness" is going to stay this way (which, btw, I support and find sensible), there will be an inconsistency in the titling of movie articles, because one article (this one) would use the titling as in the official source, whereas the other(s) would use titling according to Wikipedian style rules. I therefore think that the colon should be removed from all Star Trek movies after (and including) Star Trek Generations. 131.211.45.136 (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Colons, I think, are still implied. Since titles don't have to follow grammatical rules, they have been omitted. However, if one reads the titles, it's evident that they are subtitles, for, as just phrases, they don't necessarily make much sense. What meaning does Star Trek Nemesis, or Star Trek Insurrection, or any of those have, without a colon? Does Star Trek itself have a nemesis? Or is there an insurrection by Star Trek? No, the colon is implied. They are all subtitles. Similarly, Star Trek itself isn't going into darkness, rather, "Into Darkness" is an episode in the Star Trek context. It stands to fair reason that all Star Trek movies be entered in a colon fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baryon (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion - Star Trek is a prefix

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Looking at the poster images for the film, "Into Darkness" shouldn't be considered a subtitle because a) it's in a bigger font and b) a title should be able to stand on it's own without the subtitle and "Star Trek" is just the name of the series. Even if it were a subtitle, a colon would not be needed because there's a line break instead. The poster images actually suggest that the title of the movie is "Into Darkness". Star Trek is just a prefix to that to clarify the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the discussions that have already taken place - people have noticed these things already. Nsign (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I can find nowhere in the discussions above where anyone suggests that "Star Trek" is a prefix, and that the title is simply "Into Darkness", as the IP user has suggested. cmadler (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Trust me they are there. I know because I brought it up. Some sections don't appear to be showing - are they collapsible or some such thing? - but the argument was had. Extensively. Anyway its irrelevant now - the title has been corrected and there is no colon. Let us together rebuild this world so that we may share in the days of peace. Nsign (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Changed, not corrected. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Did Nobody Check the Website?

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Look at the page header of the official web site for the movie (http://www.startrekmovie.com). The Title of the page reads, "Star Trek Into Darkness." No, not the text on the page itself. Paramount isn't being helpful there and has put the title in all-caps. I'm talking about the <TITLE> tag in the underlying HTML code. It's what appears in the tab of the browser. That reads, "Star Trek Into Darkness." I should think that Paramount gets to decide on the proper spelling of their own movie and we necessarily defer to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrhain (talk • contribs) 18:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Paramount uses the title in a sentence in all their literature. That proves that "into darkness" is not a subtitle, ergo it falls under the auspices of MOS:CT. It's been good enough for hundreds of other articles, but apparently not this one. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't prove it's not a subtitle at all. It's simply a creative piece of writing used to promote the film. Nothing more, nothing less. douts (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The evidence shows that the title was used in a sentence by the creators of the film. That's an indisputable, citable fact. That seems weightier than with your opinion that it was a "creative piece of writing" that somehow doesn't matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Incidentally, someone just tried to close this thread for no apparent reason other than they consider the matter closed. There was no consensus for the page move, and even if there was there is nothing to stop us continuing to discuss the matter because consensus can change. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The film Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol , also by J.J. Abrams, likewise features the name of the main series in a smaller font with the subtitle (if you can call it that) in a larger font on the next line. So the display of the title of Star Trek Into Darkness was probably chosen this way to ape J.J. Abrams last MI film. The WP article uses some kind of dash in the title of Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol so how about using a dash here as well. So we would have Star Trek – Into Darkness. Wstidtp (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The official M:I site uses a dash. Not so for STID. (Is that acronym a thing? I’m going to start saying “stid” out loud when referring to it.) Pretty much everyone capitalizes the ‘I’ with no punctuation. Besides, the supertitle M:I has a colon in it itself, so the dash is necessary for clarity. “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol” doesn’t really make sense to the eye. —Frungi (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I haven't seen any other sources that use "Star Trek – Into Darkness" while there are a number of sources (although not all) which use "Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol". Ryan Vesey 23:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Plus there's a factual error in this proposal. Abrams didn't direct M:I – GP; Stuart Baird did. Abrams directed Mission: Impossible III. Anyway, the point is that "Star Trek Into Darkness" is the way that the actual people involved in creating the work have consistently capitalized it, and we have no damn right morally to do otherwise. oknazevad (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
We do it with hundreds of other composition titles. What has morality got to do with it? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it’s that it’s the way everyone has consistently capitalized it—sometimes I see a colon, but the capitalization is universal, from what I can tell. Wikipedia ought not be the exception to something like that. Adherence to house style rules was the issue for some WP editors, but if every source, including those with similar house rules, breaks theirs, then we still ought not be the exception. —Frungi (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Splitting the talk page into "(i|I)nto" and "non-(i|I)nto"

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

So that sane, productive discussions about actually improving the article can actually take place rather than getting lost in all the mud-slinging. 184.70.12.238 (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, this is no longer necessary now that the article has been moved and the furor seems to have died down, and further discussion on this page will be about improving the article rather than arguing over names. —Frungi (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
This page was the best flame-fest ever! Can someone rename the page back to 'i' so we can carry on? Hughperkins (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
If that’s the goal, then I think you’d do better to rename it to ‘u’ per this discussion, and then vociferously argue for it when they want to move it back. —Frungi (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
That section was definitely the highlight for me. Especially the Star Wars comment. I laugh out loud every time I re-read it! Hughperkins (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
why don't we just not use capital letters on wikipedia? the english language used to use capitals for all nouns, now only proper nouns and beginning of sentences. we dont need them at the beginning of sentences, there's a period. plus, its very cool in a low key way. and, with smaller letters, we would use fewer electrons. user:mercurywoodrose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercurywoodrose (talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 February 2013‎
Because Jimbo is not E.E. Cummings. —Frungi (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Into is a compound preposition. The Title makes sense as a sentence fragment (noun phrase), because Star is an adjective.

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

First off, I edited a section it asked me not to, and I apologize. I ctrl+f'd to my name to reply to someone and didn't see the warning. Super sorry. Anyway..

The MOS explicitly says "The first word in a compound preposition" should be capitalized. Linguistics lesson time. Into is a compound of the prepositions In and to. http://owl.english.purd,ue.edu/owl/resource/594/02/ Compound_preposition If the space was not removed through reduction the tile would read 'Star Trek In to Darkness'. If a compound becomes one word, it would represent "the first word in a compound." The guideline was plain as day, yet casually ignored by those fighting for strict adherence to the lower case guideline. The most literal, strict, and pedantic interpretation of MOS (which I don't advocate anyway, for it is just a guideline) demands that Into be capitalized. There was no written exception for single word compound prepositions. Into is a specific type of compound called a copulative similar to words bittersweet and sleepwalk. FURTHERMORE, Into is a very special type of preposition called a directional spatial adpositions. Directional spatial adpositions can only combine with verbs that involve motion. Onward and Upward Onto point two.

I want to take a second to address the "it cant be a sentence because stars can't take treks" argument, because I think it is wrong. When into is used in a sentence, Into modifies the word Trek as trek is the verb. Remember, directional spatial adpositions can only combine with verbs that involve motion. 'Trek Into' becomes the verb phrase and then 'Trek Into Darkness' becomes the noun phrase because it describes a specific event (such as the Civil War.) Star becomes an adjective. Everyone arguing the sentence doesn't make sense is arguing that Star can only be used as a noun. But in a sentence Star is parsed as an adjective. We have a Trek Into Darkness. What type of Trek is it? A Star type Trek. It is a Trek (Into Darkness) that pertains to Stars. (See definition 17 of star in this dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/star)

They have purposely used the phrase in a way which is unfamiliar to fans. To boldly go indeed (yes I know I split the infinitive, it was an allusion.) Think of Star and Space as synonyms for Futuristic in this use scenario. Yet, I would argue that Star has always been the adjective and Trek has always been the noun. The show has always been about a Trek of the Star/Space variety, and never about Stars themselves taking Treks. The words have been used this way for a long time. The new title becomes equivalent to Futuristic Trek Into Darkness, or Trek Into Darkness in Space. Thus, Star Trek Into Darkness can be read as a sentence fragment because Star describes the type of Trek. The word Star itself has taken on a less common meaning (in Space.) Star is in the dictionary as this type of adjective, we just don't see it too often outside of the titles Star Trek and Star Wars. I personally think they did this on purpose to draw attention to the title, and get people talking about it. In a way it is reminiscent of the title The Empire Strikes Back.

In short: Into should have been capitalized from the beginning as per MOS and the compound clause. In addition, the subtitle debate is wildly irrelevant, because as a fragment the title is perfectly parse-able as a legitimate and fully grammatical noun phrase.

As for this issue as a whole, from an outside perspective, it seems as if consensus was reached a long time and two people managed to hold up a common sense fix by continually misusing the MOS (by forgetting the compound preposition clause, among other things like ignoring common sense and ignore all rules.) It wreaks of people who were cocksure of their position and the importance of policy, but unwilling to acknowledge they could be wrong or that policy itself could be wrong. I think a retrospective examination is in order as to how two stubborn people were able to hold up such a silly issue for so long by continually referring to a guideline that specifically said to watch out for exceptions. This type of thing should never happen again. It is painfully obvious that wp:commonname and wp:IAR (ignore all rules) should have taken precedence. This issue is embarrassing for everyone involved, and those fighting for a lower case i would be wise to reevaluate their conduct. Xkcdreader (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I've stated similar sentiments elsewhere. Some users need to examine their approach to this encyclopedia and their conduct towards others who act in good faith to make articles as accurate as possible. Nsign (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
As a Wiktionary editor, I feel the need to point out that if "trek" is regarded as a verb, "to trek into darkness" must be a verb phrase, not a noun phrase. The phrase "trek into darkness" can only be a noun phrase if "trek" is regarded as a noun; compare "open the school" (verb [phrase]) vs "opening of the school" (noun [phrase]). (I would have thought Xkcdreader would have realised this when writing that "'Trek Into Darkness' becomes the noun phrase because it describes a specific event".) The claim that "star" is an adjective is interesting; I would have interpreted it as a noun (used in a noun+noun compound, as is common in English; compare "field worker", "computer science"), but I see that some dictionaries do consider it an adjective; I've opened an inquiry on Wiktionary into whether or not it meets Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion as an adjective. Regardless of whether "star" is an adjective or a noun, the second element "star trek"/"star trek into darkness" is a noun: if "star" is a noun, it is singular; it will only be followed by "trek" rather than "treks" if the whole phrase is viewed as imploring a celestial body "(O) star, trek into darkness (and be not afraid)". If "star" is an adjective, a verb should only follow it if it is being substantivised, and even then it needs a definite article to avoid sounding like Journalese: "poor have a hard time finding work"? A non-substantivised adjective followed by a verb makes no sense: *"red administer the school"? In the end, "star trek into darkness" does seem to be a noun phrase, like "descent into hell", but not for the reasons Xkcdreader claims. -sche (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Trek Into Darkness should be a noun phrase. It describes a specific instance. What happens when you put a verb and a noun together? Darkness is a noun. If you can put an article in front of it, it should be a noun phrase, right? You can take a trek into darkness just like you can take a star trek into darkness just like you can take a trek into darkness in space. All the variants appear to be a noun phrase. It only becomes a verb phrase when you add the infinitive to to the beginning. My example is [ A Civil War/To Civil War ] I think the best way I have seen it described is "Road Trip Into Wilderness" It describes a specific Trip Into Wilderness. Hey remember that one time when we took a trip into wilderness. The reason I DONT think it is a verb phrase, is because I don't see star as an adverb. I suppose it could be an adverb, but the dictionary doesn't list it as one. Let's play a little substitution game. Muppets in Space (muppets are a noun), Star Trek in Space, Star Trek Into Darkness in Space. Or when someone says Disney on ice. Star as an adjective is roughly the same as "in space." I would also like to point out I think Star has ALWAYS been an adjective, since the starwars/startrek days. It modify the wars/trek noun to tell you what type of war/trek it is. A war of the star variety, aka war in space. The phrase star trek doesnt make sense to me if star is a noun. If I said Waterfall Marathon, you would think I meant waterfalls running. I don't think Star's themselves can trek. I think it works like the phrase Safari Adventure, Safari is the type of adventure, so it's an adjective. Hmm the more I think about it, the more right you seem. If trek into darkness is a noun phrase, trek must be a specific instance too, and thus a noun. It works as a command too. I command you: Trek Into Darkness right now. (Soooo if Trek Into Darkness is a verb phrase, does Star become an adverb for the first time ever?) Xkcdreader (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
re "I DONT think it is a verb phrase": then we agree. :] re "The phrase star trek doesnt make sense to me if star is a noun": in "road trip", do you think "road" is an adjective? If so... well, we basically agree on how the phrase functions ("road" functions like and adjective and modifies "trip", indicating the kind of "trip"; "star" likewise modifies "trek"), but I'm making the pedantic point that "road" and "star" (and "safari") are technically w:Noun adjuncts in the noun+noun compounds "road trip" and "star trek", rather than true adjectives. (wikt:WT:English adjectives has some good tests of true adjectives. In short, you can tell "star" isn't an adjective because you can't say a sky "is too star" or "is more star than" another sky, nor that one trip is "roader" than another trip, whereas you can say a clear Death Valley sky "is too starry" or "is more starry than" a cloud-obscured London sky, and a trip from Arizona to Death Valley is "shorter" than a trip from Arizona to London. And a war can't "become star" the way it can "become bloody". But see the Wiktionary page for the nuances and caveats.) -sche (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness/Archive_6&oldid=1040037619"