Talk:Once More unto the Breach (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)

DSN: Once More Unto the Breach
In a startrek.com article from 1999, actor J.G. Hertzler says his favorite DS9 episode is "Once More Into the Breach." Elsewhere on startrek.com the episode is referred to as "Once More Unto the Breach." ShutterBugTrekker 16:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I know this isn't about the article, but son of a bitch! I've watched so many ST:DS9 and TNG episodes that would have been wonderfully improved by these synopses and trivia. Well, at least I have ... the rest of season 7.. Orthografer 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's embarrassing to Wikipedia and the world at large that the StarTrek dorks have taken over Shakespeare's once famous phrase. I like Star Trak but come on... Read a book.
 * Read a motherfucking book? 24.118.120.25 (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While the DS9 episode deserves its page if people want it, the Shakespeare quote should be the main page, and the DS9 page should be a disambiguation off of that. Come on Trek Fans, it's Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.70.228 (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Once More Unto the Breach (DS9 episode)
Once More Unto the Breach (DS9 episode) is the original title of the article currently located at Once More Unto the Breach. The cut-and-paste move occurred five years later; only the 2011 history of the page should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, if you check the history of Once More Unto the Breach (DS9 episode), you'll find that although this was the original title of the article, the article and history were moved to Once More Unto the Breach (move log). Then an anon copied the content over to here but did not properly move the page. I'm proposing this page be deleted so that Once More Unto the Breach's content can be moved here per consensus above. But even if it doesn't get moved here, this page needs to go because it violates Wikipedia's licensing (see Copying within Wikipedia). It has the content of Once More Unto the Breach without giving attribution. Also, it duplicates the article's scope and the other article was created first. So move or not, this one needs to go. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article and its history should be here. The line from Henry V should redirect there. I believe the speedy tags are correct. Srnec (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Per regular procedure, the cut and paste move from January 2011 can be reverted because the original article and page history was also reverted and restored,[ and there were no major edits or modifications to the other. Also, looking at the page histories of both articles, it looks like all the attributions for the Star Trek:DS9 episode is all intact in one page. If there was any cut-and-paste move that was performed prior to January 2011, it has already been fixed, and all the relevant edits pertaining to the TV episode was merged by another admin.


 * As for the claim that "The Star Trek:DS9 episode and its history should be here, and the line from Henry V should redirect there", this appears to be a disputed move request per the discussion at the top of this page (which is usually not generally enough users and recent comments to assert a current consensus), and the article's recent page history, and should therefore be posted at WP:RM instead of a non-controversial speedy deletion request. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Once More Unto the Breach → Once More Unto the Breach (DS9 episode) — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC) This was originally tagged for speedy deletion to merge page histories, but it does not quite qualify as such when looking at the page histories, and therefore I am seeking input and consensus by posting this move request. The question that has been debated on this page is whether the Star Trek Deep Space Nine episode is the primary topic, or if the famous phrase "Once More Unto the Breach" should instead redirect to Henry V (play), or if there is actually no primary topic and it should instead be converted to a disambig page. Thanks. --Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move I think the Shakespearean bit could be built into a separate article, as it is a notable portion of Henry V that is highly referenced and paraphrased in the world at large. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The phrase is 400 years old, the episode 15. If we give the default topic to the episode, we infer that the episode is somehow of greater historical and cultural importance than the phrase, which is obviously untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.164.148 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The television episode is the only topic called "Once More Unto the Breach" that currently has an article. Discussion of another potential primary topic should occur only if and when another article is created about the phrase. An article about the phrase would have to be fairly lengthy and well-sourced in order to justify a split from Henry V (play). Neelix (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose As it's the only article with this title. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no primary topic. While the line from Shakespeare is older, there is yet to be an article on the line/speech. The DS9 episode is an episode of a well-known-but-not-very-well-known series. I say make this a disambiguation page — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The Star Trek episode is certainly not the primary topic for the phrase. Srnec (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose; there are no other articles that could have this title. A hatnote is sufficient for people who would search for Henry V by quotation.  Powers T 23:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a famous phrase from Shakespeare. See Something Wicked This Way Comes (phrase). 216.8.174.94 (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that the IP user above intended to link to Something wicked this way comes (phrase). Nonetheless, that example demonstrates why moving this article is not appropriate unless an article is created about the phrase "Once more unto the breach"; the reason that articles with the title "Something Wicked This Way Comes" are disambiguated is precisely that there are multiple articles with that title. Such is not the case for "Once More Unto the Breach". Neelix (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that that linked article is an abomination. It's nothing but one giant "in popular culture" section.  It might make a decent disambiguation page if pared down significantly, but there's really no need to, for example, index every song that uses the line.  I should hope that "Once more unto the breach" never receives such treatment here.  Powers T 01:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that there is no way a Star Trek episode is the primary topic for "Once More Unto the Breach". It's not even close. If it were close, I could stand the argument that it's the only encyclopedia topic for the phrase, but it's not even close. Only a Trekkie is going to know that there exists such a thing as this. To everybody else it's just a (well-used: I read it in a newspaper the other day) quote from Shakespeare. Srnec (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion here about what constitutes a primary article. Whatever other attributes it might have, a primary article is, first and foremost, an article. There is no competition for which article is the primary article because there is only one article: the article about the television episode. Neelix (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The confusion is yours. There is no such thing as a "primary article". See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The question is: What is the primary topic for this term? The answer is not a Star Trek episode. —Srnec (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline you cite states that "If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic." The article on that topic is what is commonly referred to as the primary article. I do not see what alternative you are suggesting to the current situation; if the current primary article's title is disambiguated, what are you suggesting the Once More Unto the Breach title should be used for? Without an article about the phrase, I'm not seeing any viable options other than to redirect it to the article about the television episode, which defeats the purpose of moving that article in the first place. That is why I see no reason for a move. Neelix (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting it redirect to the play, because the primary topic for it is not the Star Trek episode. Srnec (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the rules do support keeping the Star Trek page at the undisambiguated name, but if they do they just need a bit of tweaking to correct this ridiculous outcome, and meantime we do the right thing. Vote below. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It would be laughable to suggest that the primary topic is the Star Trek episode (see Google  if unconvinced). For the moment, a redirect from Once More Unto the Breach to Henry V (play) is most appropriate, with a hatnote at the target article for anyone who is searching for the Star Trek episode but for some reason doesn't put Trek in their search (unlikely but possible). In the fullness of time Once More Unto the Breach will most likely become a DAB, there are bound to be other notable works with this title. Andrewa (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As long as there is only one article on WP that is using the name, there is no conflict among titles and no reason to use a parenthetical qualifier. There are occasional exceptions, but it's unlikely many readers searching for or linking to this string, especially capitalized, would really expect to find an article about a Shakespearean quotation at that title. Note that Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more does properly redirect to Henry V. Station1 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

 * 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: Moved to Once More unto the Breach (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) as per overwhelming consensus. Once More Unto the Breach and all other forms with all other capitalizations should redirect to Henry V (play) with a hatnote placed on that article pointing to the episode. Red Slash 01:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Once More Unto the Breach → Once More Unto the Breach (DS9 episode) – Somebody who reads "Once more unto the breach ..." and googles it may actually wind up here. They may actually come to think that the author they were reading was referencing Star Trek. Which is ridiculous. It's still ridiculous two years after this same proposal was closed as no consensus. The title should redirect to Henry V (play). Srnec (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support. This is one of the most famous phrases in English literature, so it really is a no-brainer. Those who haven't heard of it need to earn the right to discuss this in an encyclopaedia. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 14:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. But not "episode", just "DS9". Unreal7 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is an appropriate R from phrase, as there's no doubt the Shakespearean phrase is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of enduring notability. However, the proper disambiguated form for this title would be Once More Unto the Breach (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine). See the other titles in . --BDD (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support either create a disambiguation page, or an article on the phrase itself at the current name. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose; we are not Wikiquote. There is only one article on a notable topic that has this title, and that's the current one.  The phrase is mentioned only in passing in the Henry V article; there is no in-depth discussion at all.  That's an indication that it's not an encyclopedic topic, no matter how well-known the phrase.  Powers T 22:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support I agree with User:BDD that the new title should be "Once More Unto the Breach (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)" not "Once More Unto the Breach (DS9 episode)". Currently, every Star Trek episode article is titled either by just the episode name or by the episode name with the full series name following in parenthesis. Cbbkr (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support agree with User:BDD that the new title should be "Once More Unto the Breach (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)" In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, but if "the" is to be downcased, why not the preposition "unto"? Tony   (talk)  02:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Powers. If Google chooses to place the Star Trek episode ahead of the play in their results then that is a matter for them. The lower case quote "Once more unto the breach" correctly redirects to the play. The correct proper name should remain at this title with a hatnote to the play. Tassedethe (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Move to Once More unto the Breach (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine). The play should be considered the primary target here, not the episode which was named after the already well-known phrase. However, as Tony1 points out, "unto" should be in lower case per standard WP:NCCAPS rules. Also, episode articles are usually disambiguated with just the series name, and this looks to be the case with other DS9 episodes (see Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes). Jafeluv (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to make life easier for the closer, I'll note that I agree. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

An article once existed at a longer version of the title, but it was PRODded. Powers T 12:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Well, little surprise here, but now anyone looking for the episode is going to have a hell of a time finding it. The base name redirects to a section, where there's absolutely no note about the DS9 episode. Someone who didn't know that this was the beginning of a quotation is going to be mightily confused, especially since the section redirected to doesn't mention the name of the play, and the quotation doesn't even appear until fifth paragraph (and without bolding or anything else). What a ridiculous result. Powers T 17:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Move? 3

 * 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: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Once More unto the Breach (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) → Once More Unto the Breach (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) –
 * correct episode title. (User:Red Slash used the wrong target name moving this article from Once More Unto the Breach.) Cbbkr (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "unto" is a preposition with less than 5 letters. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Once More unto the Breach" vs. "Once More Unto the Breach". Every instance of the title within the article capitalizes the word "Unto", as does IMDb, TV.com, Memory Alpha and StarTrek.com. So, why can't it be so in the article title? Whichever way it goes, they should match. If "unto" is correct, then all the aformentioned places have it wrong (don't have DVD right on hand to see what it says on-screen). &mdash; Cbbkr (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree, it only makes sense to use the correct capitalisation in the article title. Miyagawa (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 100% neutral Either title is fine by me. I just closed the move to the uncapitalized version because no admin was closing the move, the general consensus was clear, the uncapped version was gaining steam near the end, and it was a redlink (therefore not requiring a WP:TM). But I have no dog in this fight at all and support whatever consensus, however shaky, develops. I strongly advise any closing admin against closing this as non-consensus, since there was no consensus for the capitalization currently in place. Red Slash 22:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, lacking any strong case for going against the standard MOS:CT guidelines. Many sources do style it this way.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, can't see any reason for a move given our style standards. Powers T 17:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm sensing desperation about capitalization and a remake of dot the i. --George Ho (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Requested move 10 August 2014

 * 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: Not moved; withdrawn by the proposer. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Once More unto the Breach (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) → Once More Unto the Breach (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) – per MOS:CT – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "unto" is a preposition with less than 5 letters and should stay lowercase. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I confess that I didn't check this talk page before submitting my technical request, and am surprised to see so much prior discussion of the matter. OK, this is getting into complicated rules, and I'm not sure I know my prepositions from my phrasal verbs from my compound prepositions. But, if Up the, Out of and Off of are correct, why isn't Unto the? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Get Off of My Cloud . The argument there is that "get off" is a phrasal verb, yet this example is listed under compound preposition in the manual of style. I assume that "Off of" is the compound preposition?? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is related, and more extensive discussion (in multiple sections) at Talk:Time Out of Mind. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Here are a couple of Google Ngram Viewer charts: (1) [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Once+More+unto+the+Breach%2COnce+More+Unto+the+Breach%2COnce+more+unto+the+breach&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2COnce%20More%20unto%20the%20Breach%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2COnce%20More%20Unto%20the%20Breach%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2COnce%20more%20unto%20the%20breach%3B%2Cc0 Including the generic phrase] and (2) [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Once+More+unto+the+Breach%2COnce+More+Unto+the+Breach&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2COnce%20More%20unto%20the%20Breach%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2COnce%20More%20Unto%20the%20Breach%3B%2Cc0 Just the composition titles]. They aren't helping us much. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. You've made some incorrect assumptions. The is never part of either a phrasal verb or a compound preposition—up in "Give Up the Ghost" is capitalized because it's part of the phrasal verb give up, not because up the is a compound preposition. The people on Talk:Get Off of My Cloud are mistaken, and the MOS has it right; the off is capitalized because off of is a compound preposition in that title. (One trick that frequently works to distinguish a preposition from a part of a phrasal verb is that a "preposition-like" part of a phrasal verb can often be moved to follow the verb's object [one can say either "put up your hands" or "put your hands up"], whereas a preposition can never immediately follow its object.) In the case of "once more unto the breach", there's no verb there at all, so that a compound-verb case is right out, and there's no compound preposition, either—unto by itself is the preposition. Deor (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.