Jump to content

Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Is “Into Darkness” a subtitle?

This is the big question of the debate that’s been going on here, and as requested and because it makes sense, I’m starting a new section on it separate from the move discussion. As with Star Trek Generations et al., does this movie’s title follow the “Star Trek [subtitle]” format? In almost all material I’ve seen, the title lacks any punctuation between “Star Trek” and “Into Darkness”, but that may simply be a stylistic choice and one not covered by our MOS. At least one editor insists that there is no subtitle if there is no colon, but I believe that’s his stylistic choice, and as I said the MOS says nothing on the subject. I say it’s open to interpretation, but my personal preference would be to treat it as a subtitle and start the article with, possibly, “Star Trek: Into Darkness (stylized as Star Trek Into Darkness) ….” Thoughts? —Frungi (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If we do treat it as a subtitle, omit the "stylized as" one line version; it is seldom stylized that way except by sources that treat it as not a subtitle. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Any and all marketing material makes emphasis of the "Into Darkness" (In particular the trailer). It can stand alone and still be recognised as a the title of the film, just like the Star Wars Movies. To me, that means it is a subtitle. MisterShiney ✉ 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses a colon to to indicate the division between a title and subtitle. Alternatives include the comma, dash (not sure which one), the slash, and line feed. As the colon is a matter of style, it doesn't need a source, just acceptance of the Title/Subtitle format. Scjessey rejects that there is definitely a subtitle. As he is not alone, we are at an impass. It may be clarified by reviews of the movie, after its release. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Scjessey is correct on The Colon Question (and hey, that would have been a great episode title) - there are extant statements from the creators stating that they would not use a colon. There is also no primary or secondary source I am aware of that employs a colon. However, irritatingly and confusingly, it does NOT necessarily follow that the title is a sentence because we have no official confirmation that it is, titles do not follow normal grammatical rules and precedent points to it being unlikely. What pretty much every primary and secondary source does do is capitalise "into". Wikipedia should, to reflect real-world usage and stop the article looking glaringly and wilfully conspicuous, simply capitalise "Into" as everyone else has done. Both interpretations are then possible - and that's the actual situation at the moment. If we're already prepared to accept four "mistitled" Star Trek films as per the examples given above, arrived at using common-sense and a reflection of real world usage, then we should accept that the MOS needn't be rigidly adhered to in this case. Nsign (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The colon is irrelevant; I just used it here to separate the title from the subtitle, which (if “Into Darkness” is intended to be a subtitle) the producers opted not to do. It’s a matter of style, nothing more. Same with the other titles you listed. —Frungi (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Probably – the posters and such style the "Star Trek" and "Into Darkness" parts quite differently, as if it's intended to be a subtitle. Since they use separate lines (see images), they don't need a colon; but we would, if we want to treat it that way. The present single-title format seems like an odd title; it feels like there should be a break there. This image has "Star Trek II Into Darkness". And this one and this one and this one and this one use a colon. Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Those are not insignificant secondary sources. I remain of the view that "Star Trek: Into Darkness" is the most reasonable title. "Star Trek II Into Darkness" shows that the authors/producers are into playing games with reality. I fully expect the local theatres to list it as "Star Trek 12: Into Darkness". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Whether it's a subtitle or not is irrelevant. Any guesses on our part is POV original-research.
The only thing we know with any certainty is that the official source and every major mainstream publication, from Time to The New York Times, spells it '"Star Trek Into Darkness.
The whole "is it a subtitle" argument is a smokescreen obscuring the fact that filmmakers, as creative people, chose a deliberately creative way to spell the title. We have to respect their choice. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Choosing an appropriate title is a very reasonable editorial decision, and involves our own style decisions. The factors discussed here rise to nowhere near the levels prohibited by WP:NOR.
That said, the "official source and every major mainstream publication" is an important consideration. The MOS should exempt cases where application of the standard MOS guideline alters meaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Relax please Rob. Frungi is new here, but there is nothing new. WP:NOR is about editors doing calculations, or combining multiple sources to make a conclusion - we are not doing that. We are allowed to make the subtitle decision (and we reached no consensus). It's not a back door attempt. The above MR discussion was pretty thorough and well run and has all participants respecting the close. It will take very significant new information to justify a fresh move discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with tenebrae and Robsinden (to an extent). We have no definitive answer on the subtitle question so its pointless debating it - we'll get nowhere. The decision, comrades, should be whether or not to capitalise "Into" like every major primary and secondary source does to reflect real-world usage and be, y'know, encyclopedic. Nsign (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Which was discussed ad nauseum above and the result was no consensus to move. Therefore I suggest we all take a much needed break, as we're not about to find consensus to make an exception to MOS:CT any time soon. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
That being said, I urge interested parties to join this discussion concerning MOS:CT if they have an issue with the lowercase preposition guideline. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
We do have a definitive answer, the lack of acceptance of that answer, not withstanding. WP is fine and it covers this scenario just fine. The matter of fact is that Into Darkness is a subtitle, and following the rules of WP, it should be treated with a capital letter for "Into". There are official sources that have demonstrated this repeatedly, including a recent posting from the official Facebook account that inserts a colon after the trademark "Star Trek". The current article name is actually in violation of WP, so the argument for "into" is essentially arguing to keep the title in violation of WP by referring to irrelevant WP sections. At this point, it seems a comment from J.J. Abrams himself directly about this conversation wouldn't resolve the error. I suppose we can petition J.J. Abrams to rename his movie so it matches the Wikipedia article. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 21:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
No, we do not have a definitive answer. With only a single source (Facebook!) including a colon, there's just no evidence to support the subtitle theory. Rehashing this again and again will not serve any useful purpose. Unless something significant changes, I suggest we abandon this and focus on improving the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I linked four sources with colon above; none of them was facebook. It's not an unreasonable way for them to set the title, given that the intended structure is interpreted (by them) as Title: Subtitle. We are so far interpreting it the other way, in which case lower case "into" is a reasonable way to set it. The other way, with no colon and capitalized "Into", is also reasonable, and common; it just doesn't fit WP styling very well. Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
As noted, lack of acceptance not withstanding. You are quick to dismiss actual external sources, but more than happy to make up your own rules to suit your personal beliefs in this discussion (commenting on your "no middle ground" comment above). This issue isn't going away until the article is corrected. This process is just going to get more painful as we get closer to the release. Of course, you could always hope that J.J. Abrams is aware of this debate and change the movie's title just to screw with us. But, right now, the title is wrong. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 21:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Re Scjessey’s stance on the subtitle matter, I’ve actually explicitly asked him about that on his Talk page, and he very kindly answered. I invite you to go read it, and I urge you to always consider that the opposing side of an argument may have good reason for opposing. I still personally disagree with his conclusion as I said there and in multiple places on here, but he does have a point. Also, I’ll point out that this is not a place for personal attacks like accusing him of making up his own rules. —Frungi (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The most telling piece of evidence that it is indeed a subtitle is the trailer. I have never seen, nor do I know of any other film without a subtitle that shows the title on different screens with a CLEAR, DISTINCT gap between the 2. Also, since titles (the entire title) is a proper noun, basic english grammer DEMANDS that each and every word of the title MUST be capitalised. Any 9 year old could tell you that proper nouns should be capitalised. douts (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Look up title capitalization. Articles (a/an, the) and prepositions, especially short ones, are nearly universally not capitalized within a title. (Short verbs like “is” are also often not capitalized, but that’s another issue.) I agree with your first point here, but your second is fallacious. —Frungi (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely reject this notion that the title needs to be "corrected". If, in the future, a consensus forms around reclassifying "into darkness" as a distinct subtitle, then the "into" will need to be presented with a capital "I". But if that consensus doesn't form, it will stay as it is unless some change in MOS:CT occurs (and that is something under discussion). In the meantime, all that derogatory bullshit about "basic english grammer [sic]" and 9-year-olds needs to stop right the fuck now, okay? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey's 2nd and 3rd sentences. And also that grandma demands no such thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Calm down, everyone. No need for slinging mud at each other. Scjessey - I am quite uninterested in going over old ground but your comment that "there is just no evidence to support the subtitle theory" is incorrect as a glance through the reams of discussion and argument above us here will attest. Nsign (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm really dismayed by the fact that if a writer, an artist, or any creative person titles something a certain way that we would presume to change it. The Kansas' song "Carry On Wayward Son" is not "Carry on Wayward Son" or "Carry on, Wayward Son." Cummings' book is 5 is not Is 5. Where do we get off changing J.J. Abrams title — as he himself gives it — either by adding a colon or lowercasing the I?
Do we really need to add a rule to Wikipedia saying we have to give titles as the creator titled something? There is nothing in the MOS that allows us to change creators' title to what we think they should be. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
“Do we really need to add a rule to Wikipedia saying we have to give titles as the creator titled something?” Personally, yes, I think we should. We already do this to some extent (e.g. the article title of iPod). Exceptions to the rule should include completely unreasonable and little-used creator-given titles. —Frungi (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, 100%. douts (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, because then you'll have arguments over almost every composition title. And anyway, that is something that should be discussed at WT:MOS, not here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Scjessey. If we are to assume that the capitalization of letters in a title is always a significant "creative" choice (as it is in some specific cases, like the case of is 5 that Tenebrae gives above) then madness will follow. For this film, the title has been represented in official sources both as "Star Trek Into Darkness" and as "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS". So which is the specific "creators" choice of title? All caps or just caps for the first letters of the words? Or is the more reasonable conclusion that capitalization is not an intrinsic feature of the title, thus not a "creative" choice at all? If the capitalization of The First Letters In The Title were an important "creative" decision, you would not see it IN ALL CAPS on the poster and in the trailer - the main ways the title is communicated to the public. The idea that a capital "I" is of some "creative" significance is nonsense. 99.192.55.5 (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I imagine all-caps would fall under unreasonable and little-used. The majority of secondary sources do not use all-caps for titles. In this particular case, they do capitalize “Into”. —Frungi (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
All-caps falls under its own Wikipedia guideline. And while 99.192.55.5 (talk) says something might or might not be a reasonable conclusion, the fact is that it's a conclusion, which is original research. And for any of us to say that we're privy to whether something is a "creative choice" or not is quite hubristic. You say, "The idea that a capital "I" is of some "creative" significance is nonsense." As an author myself, I say it's not nonsense: J.J. Abrams certainly knows basic grammar. So who's right? It's POV. All we can do is what every responsible journalistic publication has done and respect the creator's title as the creator made it. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
No, all we can do is respect the style guidelines as set out by THIS publication. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
But those guidelines don’t address how subtitles should or should not be formatted. WP is treating the title differently from all available sources, and from every previous film in the franchise, and that’s WP:OR. Of course, those who feel there is no subtitle also claim that playing it safe and following that firmly established precedent is OR. Point is, WP gives no guidance on which assumption should be made. —Frungi (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, it's well-established that guidelines (as opposed to policies) are flexible. And Rob Sinden's insistence on a spelling that no mainstream outlet nor the filmmakers themselves use is a violation of the policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which reads, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --Tenebrae (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
It's only one point of view that by ignoring all rules will it improve Wikipedia. As the no-consensus move request above shows, there is opposition to this point of view. In the event of this non consensus to ignore the rules, we should be following them. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
We shouldn't be making any assumptions. Any assumption is WP:OR. We should be taking this at face value, which, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is a sentence. But we've gone over this ad nauseum above, and there was no consensus to move. Let's put this to bed until we have further evidence or information. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
And this notion that "into" is not the same spelling as "Into" is utter nonsense. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Apparently, I'm insisting on a spelling that differs from that of the filmmakers! I'm fairly sure I spell "into" the same way that anyone else does! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
This also has been discussed before: [1]. As for assumptions, treating it as a phrase (not a sentence—there is no predicate) is also an assumption, and one that there is more historical and stylistic evidence against than for, as described elsewhere on this page. —Frungi (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I do agree with Rob that the title needs to be taken at face value. So, seriously, it's good to have common ground. I think we have differences on what that means, but it's a good place to start.

For the record, as someone in publishing and journalism, if I write, "The Dog jumped over the Couch," the words "dog" and couch" are indeed misspelled. Errant capitalization is a misspelling. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As an Englishman who knows English pretty well, I can tell you Dog and Couch are not misspelled. They are just styled improperly and do not change the meaning of the words or the sentence. If you were correct, how would you account for all the misspellings in this paragraph?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
-- Scjessey (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
^^In those days they used to capitlise nouns, like they do in modern german — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.11.29.103 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


Lack of education. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
People capitalized all sorts of weird things back then. Bad example in a discussion of contemporary usage, and I don’t see how it’s supposed to support the argument of capitalization vs spelling. (For the record, this meaning of “spelling” is new to me, but I’m not a professional in a field of writing.) —Frungi (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a traditional legal doctrine of statutory construction which states that the specific governs the general. See, e.g., Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 445 (1987). Here, the wiki guideline MOS:CT would be "general" while "the official source and every major mainstream publication, from Time to The New York Times, spells it 'Star Trek Into Darkness'" cited by Tenebrae would be "specific." Thus, the word "into" in the title Star Trek Into Darkness should be capitalized to conform with the cited sources. Jjuo (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the link between taxation[2] and orthography, or how United States case law is relevant in applying manuals of style! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The pro-capitalisation stance here seems to hinge on the assumption that there is a creative decision on the part of the author(s) to capitalise. It could just be that they are using a different style guideline to us. Do we have a source to say that there was a conscious decision to capitalise the "i"? Do we have a source (originating from after the announcement of the title) that "Into Darkness" is a subtitle? No? Until then, there's not much more we can discuss, and we'll have to take the title as given at its face value and apply our style guideline, as anything else can be considered original research. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    Why demand a source from after the announcement? Is there a source claiming that Abrams changed his mind about using a subtitle?
    The “creative decision” is that it’s a subtitle, as in e.g. Star Trek Generations (where “Generations” is generally recognized as a subtitle). Granted, being the first movie after a reboot makes it less of a certainty, but we still believe it’s the safer assumption—and it’s an assumption either way. Those opposed to capitalization are assuming something that seems significantly less likely, given the franchise’s history. At present, the best solution to avoid OR is to go with the universally used styling: capital I, no colon. If and when the intent becomes clear, it’s easily remedied by removing one or adding the other. —Frungi (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    If we have a source after the announcement of the title, then we have an argument. All we have is a statement of intent from Abrams - we don't know if he followed through. And the only solution to avoid OR is not to try and second guess intentions, we have to take the title at face value - no colon = no subtitle, and thus a single phrase, to which we should apply the established Wikipedia style guide. ANYTHING else is OR. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    Oh come on! He has blatantly followed through (no other action implied). You only need to look at the official trailer for goodness sake and any other reliable source reporting about the film! I seriously do not understand how or why some editors are still arguing about this. MisterShiney ✉ 20:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
In an attempt to help break this log-jam over whether to apply a wiki guideline to override numerous external references and sources showing "Into" as being capitalized in the title, I cited the well-accepted doctrine of statutory construction (which is how courts construe the different laws and rules that govern us) that "the specific governs the general." The snarky comments of Rob Sinden aside (which misses the forest for the trees), courts often deal with situations where two parties argue that following one rule would lead one result, and following another rule would lead to a different result--and a court may resolve the dispute by following the more specific rule over the more general one. In addition, the consensus of outside sources and references also appear to support capitalizing "Into." Indeed, the official website (including the <title> metatag) uses "Star Trek Into Darkness" which is a piece of specific evidence that should be persuasive. Yet some continue to argue internally that the general guidelines of a style manual should override this objective external evidence of specific usage. To avoid this discussion becoming even more like a debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the default should be to follow the official source, which also would be consistent with the guideline of no original research, unless a consensus to the contrary is reached. Jjuo (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That sounds great, but unfortunately that is not the way Wikipedia works. The actual title of the movie is "Star Trek Into Darkness" and we all agree on that; however, under Wikipedia's styling guidelines and titling policies we should present that as "Star Trek into Darkness". Despite exhaustive discussion over many months, no consensus has formed to ignore the policies and guidelines and make an exception for this particular composition title. From this point on, there are only two possible outcomes that involve changing it. The first is if Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are changed (and they are currently being discussed). The second (somewhat more unlikely) is if the producers of the movie decide to put a colon (or similar) into the title. Assuming neither of those conditions apply, any further discussion or debate is a complete waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No. However the US judicial system works, this is not the case for Wikipedia. The default is to follow our style guide, not someone else's. Look. We had a move discussion, and there was no consensus to move, so we default to our style guide. It's too soon to start another move discussion, as there is no additional information/evidence since then. We can discuss the whole thing over and over again, once more evidence comes to light. Until then, there's nothing more to say that hasn't already been said. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I think Scjessey said it better, but we're basically saying exactly the same thing!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Tightly sticking to rules and procedures is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, yet this appears to be approach taken by some. It might have useful to look at this issue from a different perspective to break through this gridlock, but it seems that people have rigidly settled into their respective camps. Jjuo (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Jjuo is correct. Two editors are arguing that Wikipedia manual of style is completely rigid and inflexible, which is demonstrably not so, and they also ignore WP:COMMON.
In response to one comment, no one is assuming anything about a conscious creative decision. We're simply reporting what the creative people said. Period. People may disagree and have different opinions, but let's not say things that are blatantly false.
RE "an Englishman who knows English pretty well": Yes, and I'm sure you can write English. That doesn't automatically make one a writer. Star Trek aside, I as a layman wouldn't tell a surgeon he was cutting into someone the wrong way. Telling a professional writer, editor and journalist that "Dog" and "Couch" were not misspelled by capitalizing, or conversely that "london" is not a misspelling, is simply incorrect. If a copy editor were to let those misspellings go, he or she would be fired.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Or if he referred to miscapitalization as misspelling... Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I presume Tenebrae does so regularly and continues to be employed.[citation needed] —Frungi (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Tenebrae, but you are wrong about this. Lowercasing "into" doesn't turn it into a spelling mistake. That's just crazy talk. And there are more than two of us arguing in opposition to a change, it is just that your merry band of anarchists have worn everyone else down. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone who doesn't agree with you is an "anarchist"? Thanks for the ad hominem attack.
If I'm an anarchist, then so is every newspaper and magazine fro Time to The New York Times and the filmmakers themselves. Oh, wait — anarchists are the ones who go against order and the rules of a larger society in order to promote their own manifesto without compromise, flexibility, or integration with the real world. Hmm. I wonder who's really the "anarchist." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been following this discussion since I "voted" above. I am not very experienced with Wikipedia, but I am aware of the often-repeated mantra of assuming good faith. Both Rob and Simon (and others) have used the term "anarchy" in this related discussion when talking about the problem of everyone having a different opinion if there is no guideline. It is possible that Simon was using the term "anarchist" in that context and not trying to make an ad hominem attack. Perhaps a few people could do with dialing back their rhetoric. - 76.124.173.41 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely correct, 76.x. The "anarchist" thing is indeed a reference to the idea that if we just renamed things willy nilly, it would be tantamount to anarchy. If I had been making an ad hominem attack, it would've been more obvious, motherfucker! (Obviously meant to be a joke, guys.) -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
A sense of humor is important, and I'll give you points for that one. While I still don't appreciate the labeling, it's hard to be upset when someone can put their behavior in lighthearted perspective. Sincere kudos to you for it, Scjessey. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
(EC) "Common sense" isn't a justification for anything since it's also "common sense" that the guidelines have been codified as such for a good reason. "Common sense" doesn't support either side. Also, saying that something is "flexible" doesn't mean that that thing should automatically bend over backwards. There has to be a well thought-out reason as to why the rules should be bent. So, please stop using these two shallow "arguments". DonQuixote (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Well-thought-out reasons have been brought up:
  1. Every source styles it the same way, including ones that normally use lowercase for prepositions—every instance of “Into Darkness” has it capitalized.
  2. Changing the title here either way (by lowercasing “Into” or by adding a colon) would force a single reading when it’s demonstrably unclear to WIkipedia which one is correct.
There are other reasons based on the fact that it’s a subtitle, but as that’s in dispute, I’ll let those lie. —Frungi (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, so please use those rather than invoking "common sense" or "flexible". DonQuixote (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved in this for a few months, but it says something that nearly every edit made to the article is either someone capitalising the "I", or one of us reverting it. drewmunn (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    It says the vast majority of editors visiting the article either don't know or don't care about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm going more with the "don't think it's right". Just because the US has the death penalty doesn't mean I agree that's it's right. drewmunn (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that a majority of editors believe the "Into" should be capitalized (based on a variety of different reasons including external sources), and a minority believe that "into" should remain in lowercase based on a wiki guideline, which prevents consensus (and, based on a prior comment from an editor in the minority that either the guideline must be changed or the producers add a semicolon to the title before he would change his position, consensus probably will never be achieved absent the occurrence of these unlikely events). If the dispute was based on two opposing external sources, I would agree that defaulting to the wiki guideline would be appropriate. However, that is not what is happening. Instead, a minority of editors are tightly sticking to rules and procedures against what a majority of editors believe to be correct. Because this is a consensus-based enterprise, the majority cannot overrule the minority—but this creates a filibuster situation. Is the minority willing to accept that a well-reasoned majority view is a sufficient basis to justify an exception to a wiki guideline? I suggest this would be consistent with the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. " Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." Jjuo (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept a greater number of individuals think the article should be renamed despite Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; however, it is important to understand that the minority is not a small one, even if it has been a less vocal constinuency of late. Equating this scenario with a filibuster implies the minority is being obstinate and unreasonable, and I reject that categorically. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Where one editorial group (A) is relying solely on wiki guidelines to block a change another editorial group (B) is seeking based on external sources, I would suggest that the Group A should give weight to the fact that Group B represents a majority view. I am not saying that the minority should always concede to the majority, and the guidelines clearly state that Wikipedia is not a democracy. But that does not mean that the fact a majority (or even a sizable minority) view should not be given weight when deciding whether to make an exception to a style guideline. Jjuo (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I honestly don’t understand the opposition to capitalization as well as I would like. Maybe that’s simply because I’m on the other side, or maybe I’m missing something, but it just seems to me that those in opposition are being unreasonable—sticking to our policies and guidelines no matter the argument for an exception, and preferring a less likely reading over the more likely. I’m not trying to accuse here; I just don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way, and I’m hoping that I’ve misinterpreted things and someone corrects my (and likely others’) misunderstandings. —Frungi (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I probably should have copied this here from WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY earlier, since it succinctly says what I've been saying and is a policy page that supersedes guideline pages: "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
With respect to the position that "Into" should be capitalized only if either the guideline is changed or the producers add a semicolon to the title, that is an "overly strict" approach which tightly sticks to the style guideline without exception. The first example would not represent an exception to the guideline because the guideline itself is being changed. Nor would the second example represent an exception to the guideline because by breaking the title into two parts, the first and last words of the two titles would be capitalized under the rules. So instead of keeping an open mind to making an exception to the guideline, this approach ignores the Wikipedia admonitions previously discussed by essentially demanding strict adherence. Jjuo (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This is my perception as well. So, following from my most recent post, assuming good faith and taking for granted that there are circumstances under which Scjessey, Rob Sinden, et al. would allow an exception: What would those circumstances be, or what arguments would be necessary? —Frungi (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
A reliable source that says that it's not a stylistic choice but rather that the "i" must be capitalised...that is, somemthing that does not involve interpretation, synthesis, POV or original research.
Something that does not involve interpretation, synthesis, POV or original research...that is, a reliable source that says that it's not a stylistic choice but rather that the "i" must be capitalised. DonQuixote (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, though I still don’t understand why it isn’t a factor that no reliable source seems to use a lowercase I. —Frungi (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
In an earlier discussion, one editor noted that "[Star] Trek Into" could be interpreted to be a phrasal verb (verb + particle), and then both words should be capitalized under the MOS. But then people started disputing whether "trek" was a noun or a verb in the title, and DonQuixote asserted that this was all "original research" and hence improper under wiki principles. Yet there remains two plausible interpretations of the title—one which would lead to using the lowercase, and one leading to the uppercase—depending on which interpretation is adopted. Because choosing between them would constitute "original research," the initial question is not whether to make an exception to the MOS—but rather which interpretation of the title should be adopted in applying the MOS. In this light, one must ask why is one group allowed to claim its lowercase interpretation as the default when there is another plausible interpretation of the title that would lead to using the uppercase "Into" under the MOS? Because the MOS can support using either lowercase or uppercase depending on one's interpretation of the title, the MOS should not be relied upon to resolve the issue. It would effectively adopt one editorial group's "interpretation" over another editorial group, which would be clearly improper under wiki principles. Therefore, outside sources must be consulted. The most reliable and authoritative source available appears to be the official Star Trek website which uses the capitalized "Into" (and this usage also has been adopted by the news media). The fact that a majority of editors also appear to agree is just gravy at this point. Jjuo (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you split this one off into a new section. Incidentally, I’d wondered the same thing at times. —Frungi (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Rather than start a new section, we should just take a break from this discussion, as, until we have some further information, we're just going round in circles. We've had the move discussion and the result was found with no consensus to make an exception to the guideline and thus we should follow the guideline and not capitalise. Please accept this and stop trying to bulldozer this move through. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
“We've had the move discussion and the result was found with no consensus”—Right. That’s why we’ve been continuing to seek consensus. Mainly by trying to convince each other of our respective points of view, but still. —Frungi (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
In the light of no further information, we're not likely to find further consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Quite simply, "trek into" is not a phrasal verb. Therefore if we default to our MOS, it doesn't matter whether "trek" is a noun or a verb, "into" should not be capitalised. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Granted, but the same argument applies to the question of whether “Into Darkness” is an unpunctuated subtitle. You feel it isn’t, so therefore we should all treat it like it isn’t, even though some of us feel that there is more evidence that it is. Why should we default to a (from the latter perspective) less supported interpretation? Capitalizing the word would allow for both interpretations, rather than forcing one, and it would be consistent with—correct me if I’m wrong—every reliable source without exception. (And as I’ve said before, our MOS says nothing on the subject of subtitles, including what if any punctuation to use.) —Frungi (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
We don't know whether or not it is an unpunctuated subtitle. For this reason, anything other than taking it at its face value is WP:OR. Taking it at face value avoids the need to interpret it one way or another. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Except, at face value, a preposition is universally capitalized. (If I’m wrong and there is an RS where it’s not, please share.) —Frungi (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
No, at face value, "into" is a preposition. Prepositions are not capitalised as per our MOS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't participated in this discussion much, mostly because I have a track record when it comes to disputes over the capitalisation of individual letters and don't wish to add to it, but I will quickly lay out my feelings on it. First, I think it's clear that there is no consensus as to whether "Into Darkness" is a subtitle or not, nor is it likely that there will be consensus anytime soon. Second, there is not (I hope) any dispute about whether or not the word "into" is a preposition in this context. The word is always a preposition, and any reputable dictionary will tell you so. The dispute is, the finer points of English grammar aside, whether "Into" should be capitalised. If it were indisputably a subtitle, punctuated or un-, the case would be clear, and we would capitalise it, for the simple reason that not capitalising the initial word of a subtitle would be unprecedented and, therefore, original research. The inverse is not necessarily true -- even if it were definitively proven to be not a subtitle, but a verbal phrase or some other construct, consensus would still be able to override the common and MoS-sanctioned practice of not capitalising prepositions. MoS is not policy, and the issue of title case is a stylistic, and not a grammatical issue. While grammar cannot be subjected to popular vote, style can. My view is that "Into Darkness" should be capitalised to avoid ambiguity. I also think it's a subtitle, but that's unrelated to my preference for capitalisation. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Into" is not always a preposition. See, for example, Talk:He's_Just_Not_That_into_You_(film). There is no contestest here, however, that it is a preposition in the title. The question is only whether there is an implied colon, or maybe possibly so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Evan for your input, and I largely agree with your points, which kind of sum up the whole argument! However, we had the move discussion, and there was no consensus to make an exception to our MOS in this case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, the answer to the question why the lowercase is the default is that the default is the MOS. That is, a title is taken as to be just a title with nothing special about it and thus taken to be treated as any other title, which includes being subjected to the MOS. Treating the title as being special and thus exempt from the manual of style is interpretation and original research without a reliable source stating explicitly that the title is something special. So, as Evan points out, if it were indisputably a subtitle, then it has to be a subtitle, otherwise, according to the MOS, it's a stylistic choice on our part.
As for outside sources, they've used Star Trek Into Darkness, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS and Star Trek into Darkness, so there's nothing that really says that one version must be preferred over another. DonQuixote (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
You're forgetting "Star Trek: Into Darkness" and "STAR TREK - INTO DARKNESS", both of which have been used by reputable sources. Moral of the story, there's nothing we can do to prove either way at the moment. If we do decide in the future to change it, then we should look at it without all this previous baggage, but until then, this conversation will just be circular. I propose we ban this discussion for a month or so, to give people a break; maybe members of both sides can rationalise given time away from the front line. Our MoS is both a valuable resource, and sometimes a hindrance to progress. We've all done what we can to try and fight our corners, and an official conclusion has been reached for now. It's unlikely either side will win consensus, so we're currently defaulted to MoS. However, that does not mean MoS wins, just that it's defaulted. We're wasting time, effort, and server space at the moment, and potentially hindering the progress of the discussion, should new evidence come to light in the future. drewmunn (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Well said. I agree about this circuitous discussion and support stepping away for the time being. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed! [3][4][5][6][7] --15:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsinden (talk • contribs)
Disagree. It is [{WP:NOR|original research]] to interpret the title as anything but what the filmmaker says it is. If no exception is made to a guideline when every mainstream source and the filmmakers themselves spell something a certain way, then when can can exception be made?
There's no reason for lowercase to be the default against reality. At the least, an encyclopedia needs to recognize that the cap-I spelling is used everywhere except Wikipedia. Since this discussion is about an overall change, including the title, to a cap-I spelling, then what I'm proposing is outside the purview of this. Which is: Stating right in the lead, "Star Trek into Darkness or Star Trek Into Darkness (latter spelling per mainstream sources and the filmmakers, former spelling per Wikipedia guidelines) is a...." Surely we can all agree on this compromise that doesn't change the article title or spelling throughout, but acknowledges what we all agree to be true and accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
We're not interpreting the title "as anything but what the filmmaker says it is", we're just applying the styling as outlined in our style guide. Please stop confusing spelling with styling. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem — I'm willing to leave aside our semantic differences and not bring the terms up again. Let's all address the larger issue of and see if we reach a compromise as I suggest. Wikipedia, after all, works on both consensus and compromise. We're all passionate and intelligent, and I'd like to think we're all reasonable and capable of finding a middle ground. I'd hate to think we're Tea Party Republicans!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The reason we're defaulting to lowercase is because that's what it was prior to this discussion starting. It's nothing to do with MoS, or any user's preference. It's simply that no action can be taken unless consensus is reached, and no action just happens to fit with the MoS. If the article was already called "Star Trek Into Darkness", it would have defaulted to capitalised, because we would not have reached a consensus to move it to anything else. We can cite all the evidence in the world, but we're still not going to get anywhere by carrying this on. Progress is not a constant battle, it's a timely process. Let's all listen to Aesop, do as the subtitle below suggests, and take a break. Otherwise, I'll speedy move the page to "That Star Trek Film (2013)". Fun fact: counting only discussions from the opening of the Move Request until now, we've written nearly 2MB of pure text arguing over 1 letter. drewmunn (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the reason we're defaulting to lowercase is due to the MOS. Have a look at WP:RMCI which advises the closing admin to follow naming conventions in the event of a controversial move. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Not directly; as far as reasoning from the closing admin, it was simply because no consensus was reached. The page originally resided at "into Darkness" because of the MoS, and didn't move to anything else because no consensus was reached as the the new location. It's possible that this was part of his reasoning, but saying that would be OR! drewmunn (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? No one wants to discuss a compromise solution that would retain the lowercase i in the title and throughout, while acknowledging in the lead the uppercase I? It's consistent with "Seven (sometimes stylized as Se7en)" at Seven (film) and "Die Hard 2 (sometimes referred to as Die Hard 2: Die Harder)" at Die Hard 2.

We can't just bury our heads in the sand the pretend the uppercase-I spelling doesn't exist. When editors can't reach consensus, we're supposed to compromise. This suggestion should give both sides what each feels is necessary while including each's opposite side. What do you say? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Convenience break

(Excuse the... er... subtitle. It's irritating trying to add comments to an enormous section.)

Earlier, Frungi said: "Granted, but the same argument applies to the question of whether “Into Darkness” is an unpunctuated subtitle. You feel it isn’t, so therefore we should all treat it like it isn’t, even though some of us feel that there is more evidence that it is."

Actually, there is concrete evidence that it is not a subtitle. Remember, Paramount used "Star Trek Into Darkness" as part of a sentence in their official synopsis. No colon and used in a sentence are two very compelling and official reasons why we can put the subtitle theory in the trash (it also obliterates the "phrasal verb" or "misspelling" theories). This discussion is about only one thing: do we have a consensus to go against MOS:CT? A majority think yes, but the minority is significant enough that no consensus exists. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime, a compromise solution exists (see above), and perhaps we can all meet each other part way, which is in the spirit of WIkipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The current focus on the MOS may be misplaced. There appear to be several interpretations (or grammatical constructions/deconstructions) of the title "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS". (1) The word "INTO" is a preposition. (2) The phrase "INTO DARKNESS" is a subtitle (or a separable title). (3) "TREK INTO" is a phrasal verb. Under interpretation #1, "into" should not be capitalized under the MOS (unless an exception is made). Under interpretation #2, "Into" should be capitalized under the MOS (although some may argue that this is instead an accepted exception to the MOS). Under interpretation #3, "Into" should be capitalized under the MOS (and I note that it appears well-accepted that "run into" is a phrasal verb, so it is possible for the word "into" to be part of a phrasal verb).

Because the MOS will lead to different capitalizations depending on how one interprets the phrase "star trek into darkness," the reliance by some on the MOS is misplaced. If "INTO" is merely a preposition, then the question becomes whether the word "into" is sufficiently important to the title that an exception should be made to the MOS to capitalize it in this particular instance. But if "INTO DARKNESS" is a subtitle, then there appears to be no dispute that "into" should be capitalized (see, e.g., Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan).

But is this grammatical interpretation "original research" or POV that is inappropriate for determining the content of a Wikipedia article? If so, and given that each side has invested so much mental energy into their respective positions, we are going down a rabbit hole where consensus on the proper interpretation may not be possible. Instead of focusing on whether one side should "win" its interpretative argument, we should focus on finding a way to resolve the impasse because the process seems broken at this point (and becoming more like the Monty Python argument sketch).

Perhaps the framework should be changed to determining whether people can agree on a sufficiently authoritative external source to resolve this matter without having to definitively resolve the grammatical interpretation of the title (the ambiguity of which may have been intentional), or to find some other compromise. Any other suggestions? Jjuo (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no ambiguity. "Into" is absolutely a preposition, and "into darkness" is not a subtitle because Paramount used it in a sentence. Let's not pretend this is even up for debate. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
None of us here can say "this is [not] even up for debate" when clearly a number of editors are debating it and the filmmakers themselves and every other mainstream source in the English-speaking language spells it with a capital I. The titles of books, films and songs don't have to follow grammatical rules, as many examples in this debate have pointed out.
And regardless: I have suggested a compromise solution that gives each side something they want. How about let's all discuss this like reasonable adults and not extremists. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
"Into" is always a preposition. It does not cease to be such when it's included in a verb phrase, and I'd be very interested to know how so many people taking part in this discussion have fallen under the delusion that it does. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
There are several sources which state that "run into" is a phrasal verb. See http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/run-into and http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/phrasal-verbs/run+into.html. But this misses the forest for the trees, and is not relevant to the question posed earlier. Instead of arguing in favor of your POV, do you have a suggestion for a framework or other compromise (other than wait from some new evidence that likely will never come or ever be satisfactory to change either side's opinion)? Jjuo (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
“"into darkness" is not a subtitle because Paramount used it in a sentence.” I continue to fail to see how this is relevant. As I’ve said before, it’s proof of nothing but that whoever wrote it knows how to write in English. If the official title were Star Trek: Into Darkness or even Star Trek 2 Into Darkness, they could still very well have written the promotional copy with “… that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.” It doesn’t reveal the context in which the producers imagined the title; it’s promotional copy. Nothing more. Now let’s all stop doing original research and reading too far into things.
But while we’re still on the subject, I’m not aware of any title in any medium where a supposedly mid-title preposition (or anything but a noun, verb, or article) begins a common short form, as is the case with “'Into Darkness”. So unless I’m mistaken, that’s another piece of evidence for. —Frungi (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It doesn't matter. "Every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words (as defined below)." The real question is, "is 'into' important?" Into isn't an everyday preposition, and although it is only four letters long, it needs to be capitalized.

1) It is a compound preposition (it is more common in other languages to join the words, but not unheard of in English.) The MOS says compound prepositions are capitalized. If the title were 'Star Trek In to Darkness' the In would be capitalized per the rules. The fact that the space is removed does not change the rule. 2) It is a directional spatial adpositions which can only combine with verbs that involve motion. Thus for the sentence to make any sense, Trek MUST be a verb. Simon Pegg said it as a verb. The official marketing team uses it as a verb in sentences. To say it is not a verb is original research. 3) Paramount is using it as a phrasal verb. If it is a sentence the Catenae must be (Star ((Trek Into) Darkness)). Star becomes a modifier of the phrase Trek Into Darkness, similar to if I said Futuristic Trek Into Darkness. We can treat the word Star as a synonym for 'in Space."

In short. If it is a subtitle it should be capitalized. If it is a sentence it should be capitalized because a) it is a compound preposition but more specifically a directional spatial adpositions, b) it is a particle of a phrasal verb and c) directional spatial adpositions can only combine with verbs that involve motion.

In conclusion: the word Into is important. That is why it is capitalized in every place but here. It should be capitalized because the MOS explicitly carves out 3 exceptions (importance, particle+phrasal, compound.) To not capitalize it is to ignore the MOS.10:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC) — Xkcdreader (talk • contribs)

Comment: I've only seen what was on xkcd and glanced through most of this article, but it seems to me a lot of this discussion - whether it's a subtitle, whether into should be treated normally as a preposition, etc. - is irrelevant. The title on the official movie website[1] states "Star Trek Into Darkness" - Capital I - and is an official source, as does the movie's page on the general Star Trek site[2]. The Facebook[3]/Twitter[4] streams also (except where erroneously entered as "Star Trek: Into Darkness" which was confirmed by Abrams as incorrect, so that other move discussion with the colon is also irrelevant) display "Star Trek Into Darkness" as well as almost every other article and news story I've seen on the film. IMDB[5], Apple Trailers[6], and the "Memory Alpha" Star Trek wiki[7] all use "Star Trek Into Darkness" as well. Wikipedia is the only source I've seen that has it as "Star Trek into Darkness" so it seems pretty odd to me that it should stay that way. ZephyronALPHA (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually...

I hadn't noticed, and no one responded to my post about compromise language, but it seems as if another editor quite rightly added a (thankfully) streamlined version of the compromise I suggested. Both sides are represented, and we're accurate in terms of the real world. So ... we're actually done, right? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

...Annnnnd I guess I spoke too soon. C'mon, men of good will. Compromise is better than extremism. Nobody gets everything they want in a compromise, but everybody gets the most important thing they want. And the encyclopedia is the better for it. Despite our differences, isn't that what we all want? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the reversion with a note to see this Talk page. Everyone who argues that it’s not a subtitle and should thus be lowercase seems to be of the opinion that the capitalization is purely a matter of style. Since the article is currently treating it as an unbroken title, it makes sense to note the capitalization used by an abundance of sources. To those of the opinion that it’s a subtitle or otherwise not a matter of style: Get consensus first, or get a source that explicitly says it should be capitalized, but leave the proper title as “styled” in the meantime. —Frungi (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
But it's not a style. A style is like the one I identified in the edit summary. Again it would be original research for us to say its a style when it conflicts with our style of writing and the officially released versions. I just think it's rediculous that we are still maintaining that its a style when every source out there has it identified as a subtitle and capitalises. But it is most certainly not a style but a grammatical choice. MisterShiney ✉ 01:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
If it conflicts with our style of writing, then obviously it’s a style, or else it wouldn’t. And non-standard grammar is an element of style. Either it should be uppercase (which is my view, and yours I believe), or—as the current article title and content have it—it should be lowercase and is styled in uppercase. If you mean to say that insisting on having it lowercase is a case of original research, that’s another matter and one that we should address (and several have attempted to). —Frungi (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
To be concise, what I’m saying is: Either we get it moved, or we call it styled. —Frungi (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I think the title is intentionally ambiguous—the better to keep the fanboys up at night—and it's working. So I doubt there will ever be a source that explicitly says what the capitalization should be. And there has been prior commentary by some on this topic that a statement from the producers may not be sufficient without an acknowledgement that "Into Darkness" is a subtitle. In the meantime, let's see if the "styled" compromise sticks. Jjuo (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I think there's no question the title is deliberately ambiguous ‐ oh, those creative types; what will they do next! — and with all respect to my good colleague MisterShiney ✉, one could make an argument for it being "styled" or "stylized" (either works for me) since in proper grammar it would either be lowercase i or have a colon. In any case, I think we have a viable compromise, and if each of us cringes a little but can live with it ... by God, now that's a compromise! &mnsp; : )   I think in the end we can all be a little proud of ourselves for meeting each other halfway. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Stylized or Stylised, I learnt long ago that for some strange reason Americans like to take letters away, replace an 'S' with a 'Z' for no apparent reason other than they then end up spelling/saying a word phonetically lol. But anyway. I strongly beleive that just because it conflicts with our way of doing things DOES NOT make it a style choice by other people. That's paramount to saying that our word is law on the English language and that we over rule anyone who see's differently. Just calling it how I see it. I for one don't like it having the line in it, because it's like we are questioning the intentions of the people releasing it and it is incorrect to identify it as a "style" when all they have done is changed a little grammar that is conversational to our MOS. But I will bite my tongue and leave it be. I can just see the headlines in a couple of months "JJ Clarifies title to satisfy Wikipedia Editors" MisterShiney ✉ 10:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Haha, you used "paramount" as a word in a sentence, not as a studio. I'm easy to amuse. Anyway, I agree that having the "styled as..." section is a good plan as a compromise. It seems that (according to my dictionary anyway), we're stylizing it, and Paramount have styled it (the two meaning slightly different things). Anyway, I don't want to get into semantics, just saying that I support the existence of "styled as..." for now. I was going to make another point, but I've completely forgotten what it was...drewmunn (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Remembered! It'd be quite interesting if we could put a hit counter on the holding page "Star Trek Into Darkness", and one on "Star Trek into Darkness", so we could see what percentage of hits came through the "Into" page. Just as an exercise if nothing else, it'd allow us to see how many people prefer "Into" over "into" in a very crude way. drewmunn (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

MisterShiney: It’s more that our word is law on how we use the English language. Personally, I believe we should deviate from that as a common-sense exception if the whole of society deviates from it, as is the case here, but that sense does not appear to be common, so what can we do. Drew: I’d be willing to bet that a majority of searches would come through “star trek into darkness” because people are lazy with the shift key. —Frungi (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, "star trek into darkness" redirects to "Star Trek Into Darkness", which redirects to "Star Trek into Darkness". :-s drewmunn (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Huh. I hadn’t tried before, but you’re right, a lowercase search takes you to the capital-I redirect. I wonder why. Maybe because it was created first? —Frungi (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In summary

In the hopes of helping myself—and others—better understand the “Into”/“into” debate from both sides, and ending the cycle of the same arguments and counterarguments once and for all even if the debate continues, I’ve put together a page summarizing it all. I hope I covered everything, but if not, please either let me know or add it yourself. I ask that before anyone on either side posts anything more on the subject here, you visit that page and read through the arguments and counterarguments from both sides with an open mind, and do your best to understand the stance you disagree with; or at least simply make sure that you’re bringing something new, rather than rehashing an old argument.

Here’s the page: User:Frungi/Star Trek Into Darkness capitalization. —Frungi (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Love it. Especially the "Let me repeat it. Again" line. Fun Fact: Since the first archived debate of this topic, we've written enough dialog on the subject to produce a movie, at least an hour long, just about the letter "i". drewmunn (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If I direct, I want it on record that I will call it "Wikipedia: Editors Into Darkness". So as not to cause a debate behind my intentions regarding the capitalisation. ;) MisterShiney ✉ 11:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
As "into" is a preposition, we'd style that here on Wikipedia as Wikipedia: Editors into Darkness, regardless of your intent! ;) --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I would sue for misnaming my works. MisterShiney ✉ 11:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
You guys! C'mere ... give us a hug!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Have a hug. MisterShiney ✉ 20:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The movie would have to be called "I" not "i", no question about it. Electiontechnology (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems the new discussion of moving this page to an appropriately-capitalized "Into" page has been closed because this talk page attracted too much attention. I haven't been an active Wikipedia editor in years, but reading the xkcd this morning made me find my password, log on, and contribute to the discussion, which has now been locked. To close a discussion because it received too much attention seems to me to be about the most self-defeating option that could have come about. Instead of the same handful of people making decisions, you had a broad audience who came to this page and offered opinions, many of which were much more well-reasoned than what were included in the original discussion (which, yes, I did read before posting comments of my own). I don't think this is a healthy attitude, and I hope the discussion will be reopened soon to encourage -- rather than hinder -- the involvement of users who don't frequently contribute. Zeutheir (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
No, no, it was closed because there was no sign of anyone changing their minds, and there were no new arguments being made. And it was right on the heels of a very similar RM. —Frungi (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Compromise"

The proposed "compromise" of having "(styled as Star Trek Into Darkness)" is no good. First of all, it was only a proposal and not something we agreed to. Secondly, it is usually styled as two separate chunks with different sizes, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally support this compromise, though perhaps we can come up with a better word than "styled". We can revise down the road based on new evidence. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I support it. The readers expect it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. Makes perfect sense to me, ideal as a temporary solution until we can wrap this issue up for good. douts (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
But it's wrong. It makes no logical sense and it isn't supported by reliable sources - it is just something we made up. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
No, it's completely correct, and the way every source in the real world including the filmmakers themselves spell the title. And while spelling it with a lowercase i goes against reality, reasonable people have agreed to compromise for the sake of stability and peace. The vast majority of the editors here support the compromise, and no one editor has the right to veto it, so it's staying. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I support the compromise, and hope it gives everyone a good opportunity to find more important things to do. No one made anything up; that idea is absurd. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Scjessey, what's wrong about it? Is it the word "styled"? Is that that the posters/trailers use funny capitalisation. In September 2012, others speculated on the meaning of the title. I'm not sure if they were considered "reliable", but I think we need something to diffuse the astonishment that readers and drive by editors feel when they see the lowercase i. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
There is ample evidence for “Star Trek Into Darkness”, and this is how WIkipedia handles names that differ from article titles in official or common use. It doesn’t matter if any of us disagree with it ideologically; it’s the style that is universally used, and the article should acknowledge that fact. If you really think it necessary, we can add (many) sources for it. —Frungi (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
And if it’s the word “styled”, I don’t like it either, but I figured it was better than being snarky and saying “written by everyone else as”. =P —Frungi (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey here. It's incorrect. It's not stylised. If we are going to comment on the Style it would be "Stylised as STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS" what with it all being in capitals in all the released materials. We are just commenting on the grammar. MisterShiney ✉ 07:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to involved to heavily in this, although I believe there should be something at least there. However, I'd just like to point out the difference between styled and stylised. The former would be correct in this case, as it means "design [...] in a particular way". The latter means "depict or treat in a [...] nonrealistic style", which is what we've done, rather than what they've done. As we're in minority when presenting it as 'into', we're stylising. drewmunn (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
We're talking about writing style, not graphic presentation. Either they (i.e. everyone outside of Wikipedia) style it with a capital I in writing, or the capital I is the only correct way to write it. As there are still editors who disagree on the latter point, we do need to acknowledge the former. And again, grammar is an element of style. But I think "written" may be a more appropriate word, so I'll change that, unless anyone has a better choice. As for all-caps (again in writing, not in graphic representation), some sources do that any time they mention a title. That's a house rule, not a title-specific styling. —Frungi (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
And let me say again that this is what we do when Wikipedia's titles differ from those in common use—either mention it as an alternate, or adopt the common title for the article title. The latter was attempted and failed (for now at least), so we go with the former. —Frungi (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I support either "usually stylised as" or "usually written as" Star Trek Into Darkness. Because it is. And we need to make some kind of acknowledgement of that in the article somewhere or, mark ye well, we will still be arguing about this a year from now. Something has to give. Nsign (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Please note that whatever is decided, "stylised"/"stylized" is incorrect usage. "Styled" is what is meant in this case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
OK whatever. Nsign (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a stupid discussion. It can be one or the other, but not both. The title is "Star Trek Into Darkness", but Wikipedia writes it as "Star Trek into Darkness". It is Wikipedia that is styling the title, so the so-called compromise is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Calm, else someone may trout you. Wikipedia is stylising the title, but others use the official style. A mentioned above, there's a difference. That said, this shouldn't be a big issue. drewmunn (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
And I don't think I could put the reason for compromise any better than Scjessey just did: "The title is 'Star Trek Into Darkness', but Wikipedia writes it as 'Star Trek into Darkness'" — a reasonable statement that acknowledges the title in the real world (which an encyclopedia clearly can't just ignore) and the title as given in an MOS (which like all MOSs are arbitrary since the world has no "official MOS"). We actually all agree what the title is in the real world. I don't think it's sensible or good policy for an encyclopedia to simply ignore the real world. Does any one of us, ultimately? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It is now fine the way it is. If this conversation continues within the next 3 months, I will personally trout that user! MisterShiney ✉ 17:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hear Hear! drewmunn (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I came here after seeing the XKCD comic and haven't previously been involved in this discussion and, moreover, haven't been active on Wikipedia for years; perhaps that makes me something of a third-party viewpoint. My impression of the opening sentence (with this compromise) is that it comes across as sounding as if Wikipedia thinks itself the authority on how things should be named, and everybody else is wrong. I'm frankly astonished at this whole debate. Since official sources and most/all third-party sources all cite the title as "Star Trek Into Darkness", I think it's simple common sense that this is the title Wikipedia should use. If the various Wikipedia policies that I see people citing say otherwise, then those policies are frankly broken. With the article's title and opening sentence as they currently stand, I feel they make Wikipedia look foolish and arrogant. – Zawersh 16:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well stated. Wikipedia Editors have been foolish, arrogant, and elitist for several years now. Thus my reason for no longer contributing to Wikipedia content -- it's not worth the hassle. In this case, the "compromise" is better than nothing, but is still silly. The page should be renamed to have "Into" since that is the official title. – Alchemistmatt (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Whilst you're entitled to your opinions, please don't insult other editors. We've put a massive amount of effort into making sure we keep the article in line with both reality, and the MoS. drewmunn talk 18:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
That it took a massive amount of effort to decide whether to capitalize an "I" pretty much confirms what Alchemistmatt said. This is a good illustration of why I don't edit Wikipedia anymore either. Only, I'm not going to sign on for the first time in over 5 years just to say this. 68.170.182.205 (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

still not as funny discussion as in case of Talk:Human_anus#Endless_image_contention 89.78.246.146 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.startrekmovie.com/
  2. ^ http://www.startrek.com/page/star-trek-into-darkness
  3. ^ https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekMovie
  4. ^ https://twitter.com/startrekmovie
  5. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/
  6. ^ http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrekintodarkness/
  7. ^ http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness/Archive_4&oldid=1136382171"