Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/Archive 2

Heather Langenkamp's involvement?
I was wondering if it should be mentioned in the article. I have stumbled onto some news about this on google accidentally. -- FaithLehaneThe  Vampire  Slayer  19:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you could provide a link, that would help us know what you're talking about. As an added bonus, a link is necessary in order to add new information into the article.  Powers T 20:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Citation a, b, c, and d. -- FaithLehaneThe  Vampire  Slayer  17:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That's certainly sufficient to put into the article, though I don't know that it's necessary to mention what looks to be a minor role.  Powers T 23:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. I've added her to the article with two of your references. She played the character Nancy Thompson (A Nightmare on Elm Street), who had psychic powers. That horror movie dealt with a villain and nightmarish dreams, so, who knows, there might be some sort of nod to fans in her casting if the plot involves either. We'll have to wait and see. She's listed in the IMDb credits for this upcoming Star Trek movie. 5Q5 (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Chris Pine quote - doubts third film
I want to save this intriguing quote by Chris Pine here in case it can be used in the future. He seems to imply that something happens by the end of the second film that would make a third movie difficult to accomplish as far as his observations go. I also saw a quote elsewhere by one of the writer-producers who said they were developing a spin-off TV series, but I went back to the newsstand a week later and couldn't find it. Perhaps there's a pre-end credits epilogue scene where someone jumps through the Guardian of Forever and the screen goes dark ("into darkness") and then fades into young Kirk riding his motorcycle near to the Enterprise being built in the first film and the timeline reverts back to the original and then the franchise moves on to a new TV series, original timeline? The bracketed material in the quote appeared in the magazine. 5Q5 (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Total Film: Does this film point to a Part Three? Chris Pine: I can't really say. Knowing these guys, there's always a way to make [more installments]. I'm sure they've built-in something, I'm just not smart enough to have seen it! But I'm sure there'a a way. What I do know is that from the start, in terms of structure, they've had an idea of where they want to take the whole thing, just like a television series.


 * I don't read any of the above statements into the quote. This is the talk page, so I'm not going to push that these be removed, but I think we should be careful about reading too much into what an actor says. There's been a lot of pre-release misdirection from the first movie and I don't think this second one is immune to that same sort of gamesmanship. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  20:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

How Is Gary Mitchell as Villain in Dispute?
Karl Urban clearly said that is who Benedict Cumberbatch was playing at ComicCon. He was clearly instructed to reveal this information. How is this being taken down? If it is being taken down by somebody with connections to the studio, who simply doesn't 'want' that info out there, please refer to the article on this site for Agatha Christie's play 'The Mousetrap.'

It is a known, public announcement by someone who had filmed the movie. I don't know how much more you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.161.60 (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Even your source treats their own report as speculation. --Ckatz chat spy  22:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dont forget we need a RELIABLE source for information like that to be included. If you find a better more reliable source I am sure it can be included. MisterShiney    ✉    22:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As I recall he also claimed a couple of days later that it was deliberate misinformation and he was leading people a merry dance. So by no means is it reliable. Nsign (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Knowing Abrams' propensity to keep his plots under wraps, it's possible that Urban may have simply said something he shouldn't have and was asked to recant. Initially, Abrams wanted Benicio del Toro (who bears resemblance to a young Gary Lockwood, who played Mitchell) to portray the villain. Though Cumberbatch was eventually cast, his hair was dyed dark and styled nearly identically to Mitchell's. Also, Alice Eve's character bears striking resemblance to Elizabeth Dehner (right down to the blue uniform and bob cut), who was instrumental in the Gary Mitchell storyline. Obviously, until there's an official announcement/reliable source, nothing should be changed in the article (but I somehow doubt the aforementioned is coincidental). Zargabaath 11:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Cumberbatch as Khan?
There is no evidence whatsoever that Bennedict Cumberbatch is portraying Khan Noonien Singh in this movie. Where's the source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.116.206.3 (talk • contribs) 09:30, December 6, 2012


 * It's no longer mentioned in the article, unless you see something I don't. And do not trust IMDb if that's what you're going by. — WylieCoyote 20:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 *  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.2.144 (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's just a blog of some fan who gets paid to get our dander up. "Five reasons" does not confirm he's playing Khan. WylieCoyote 16:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Into vs into
Could user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robsinden explain why they have reverted my edit to the title, which has now been officially referred to by the press release as Star Trek Into Darkness? It is also worth noting that this wikipedia entry is now the only place I can find where the film is identified as Star Trek into Darkness, which indicates this is merely someone's whim. Nsign (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CAPS. BOVINEBOY 2008 12:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of publications require the authors to follow a set manual of style, like the Chicago Manual of Style or the MLA Style Manual. Pretend that wikipedia's articles are class papers which are required to follow a MOS in order to get full credit, because that's basically the kind of attitude required here. DonQuixote (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Using lowercase for most movie titles these days is incorrect without a source to support the action. This isn't a point of some preference.  It is actually wrong. If you need a rule to apply, then look at how trademarks are handled.  Major movie titles are almost always trademarked.  Given all the sources show a cap'd "Into", Wiki article should comply. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  20:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:TM as well, then. BOVINEBOY 2008 00:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean MOS:TM :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No matter what the wiki rules say, if the title has been officially confirmed by the film makers as Into Darkness, that is what it should be referred to here. 81.96.134.214 (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See the recently added poster image, attributed to "to the distributor of the film, the publisher of the film or the graphic artist" by User:Quentin X. As expected, the tiel is in two parts, "Star Trek", and "Into Darkness".  The two parts are separated by all of: (1) a line feed; (2) a dramatic change in font size; and (3) and change in font.  It is not reasonable to read the title as a single sentence.  "Into" is not a mid sentence preposition.  It is the first word of the second sentence.  It should therefore be capitalised as "Into".  As well don't usually go for line feed, fint size changes and font changes in article titles, we should modify the punctuation, but we should not modify the meaning.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * According to all the official sources I've found, it's entitled STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. That's how it's rendered by Paramount whenever they write about it, so it's not particularly helpful, is it? According to Abrams (I'm not sure where I read this, I'll try to find the source), it's one phrase, taking 'Trek' to be a verb, thereby making the into not capitalised. Make of that what you will, but I'm of the opinion that where we're unsure, every word should be capitalised. That's how the Apple articles treat things (See this discussion about 'iPad Mini' vs 'iPad mini'), and that's how I treat titles in any other context. drewmunn (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Paramont's rendering in allcaps is not helpful either way. Allcaps is a style choice that Wikipedia appropriately does not copy.  It's not helpful becuase it doesn't reveal their intention of capitalisation, indicating sentence structure, due to allcaps obscuring the capitalisation of "into".   (If it were a mid-sentence preposition, we, like a great many others, choose to not capitalise as a style choice.)  I've not found any reliable/reputable (not blog) source discuss "Trek" as a verb, or something else either.  I have heard the pause (indicating implied punctuation) used in speaking to Abrams, but not by Abrams himself.  Note that others, if not using allcaps, capitalise the "into".  Note that many drive by editors obviously think the capitaliation choice is wrong.  If we were trasnlating this from arabic, we would not hesitate to put in the colon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see the various discussions in this talk page's archive. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Agree entirely with SmokeyJoe. As stated above, this wikipedia entry is the only place I can find where it is being called "into Darkness". The evidence IS clear - the official press synopsis refers to the film as Star Trek Into Darkness and now so does the poster. Why deviate from what the film makers have confirmed? The fact that the series title and the film's title are in different fonts and different sizes also indicates quite clearly they are seperate sentences. And, on a personal note, I think Star Trek into Darkness looks pretty silly. Nsign (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Am familiar. The poster is new, clear evidence that the title is not to be read through as a sentence, and therefore "into" is not a mid-sentence preposition.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just your assumption, not "clear evidence". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The evidence is "clear". It is in a picture with high contrast (unlike an audible pause on TV).  I guess that what you mean is that it is not convincing evidence, or conclusive evidence?  Can I ask you to balance the evidence?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean it's inconclusive. You're assuming intention on the part of the film-makers that may or may not be there.  We have to stick to the manual of style for this one, unless we can confirm two sentences or additional punctuation.  Anything else is original research.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that it is a single sentence. Why is that not original research?  It is contrary to the precedent of so many Star Trek titles that "star trek" is not part of a flowing sentence.  It results in a nonsense sentence.  It looks stupid.  Why do we have to stick with the manual of style that says nothing about interpretations of when a sentence string is continuous or disjointed, and since when did that softly written guideline achieve gospel status?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming anything. It is intentionally without a colon, so we have to follow the manual of style.  It is not a nonsense sentence, and this has all been discussed before.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the previous discussions as to why we follow the manual of style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Seen them. And there is still no logical reason for keeping it like this, other than (as so often with wikipedia) there is a guideline that says you can. But when the actual title has been officially confirmed by two different sources (the synopsis and the poster) - why would you? Also, the discussions you refer to took place prior to official confirmation of the title. Nsign (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, where's the source of the official title announcement that confirms the title is two disctinct sentences? The poster is just typesetting and open to interpretation.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, so after some digging, there is a synopsis statement floating around that lists it as 'Star Trek Into Darkness', but on no site can I find where the original came from. Everyone just quotes the statement, and nobody lists its origin; it's also not particularly well written, so I smell something of a rat. Anyway, I visited the official site, and they list the title (aptly in the title tag) as 'Star Trek Into Darkness'. I class that as conclusive enough, what do you think? drewmunn (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That just shows it as once sentence, and as such we need to follow MOS:CT, i.e. with "into" as lowercase. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, a reminder, lots of publications require its authors and editors to follow a manual of style. Wikipedia is one such publication. If you want to change the MOS, please discuss at WT:MOS or WT:CAPS. And to add a bit of real-world scale, if we were to complain about the house-MOS at some commercial publication, we would be reprimanded and/or fired, or at the very least our article will be copyedited or rejected. DonQuixote (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"The poster is just typesetting and open to interpretation". Only if you want to nitpick, ignore precendents and all other sources. All other Star Trek films (eleven - count 'em) use Star Trek as a heading and then use a distinct title that does not form a sentence. And so does this. Again, why would you follow a guideline that renders the title incorrectly, and not just use the title that shows on the poster and on the website? Guidelines are guidelines, not gospel. Accuracy is more important. Nsign (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The poster, by itself, suggests it's "Star Trek: Into Darkness". But Abrams himself, as well as Pegg, has stated that there is no subtitle and that there is no colon. The creator of the work trumps a theatrical poster. DonQuixote (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been debated to death. Wikipedia has a guideline for composition titles that we follow, and that's that. It is Star Trek into Darkness per the guidelines, irrespective of whether or not "into" is capitalized by the makers of the movie. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A guideline is what it says on the tin - a guideline. Not an inflexible rule. I ask again - why would you NOT refer to a work by the title given to it by its makers, preferring instead a contentious interpretation that contradicts official sources, ignores previous precedents and looks (and sounds) pretty silly? Purely because of a "guideline"? 194.73.118.78 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your questions are answered at WP:MOS and WP:CAPS. If you disagree with the answers provided there, please discuss at WT:MOS or WT:CAPS.
 * Now, the question is, why should this article be treated differently from any other article that follows the same guidelines? Please provide reasons and sources justifying its "uniqueness" (excluding the above...which, again, are answered at WP:MOS and WP:CAPS). DonQuixote (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've provided reasons. a) It follows the precedent set by EVERY other Trek film in having it headed Star Trek with a seperate subtitle that is not part of a sentence. b) It follows the official title as confirmed by the film makers. c) Star Trek into Darkness looks bloody stupid and it should be obvious to anyone capable of using common sense that it is not intended to be taken as a sentence, even without a semi-colon. d) Guidelines are not set in stone. If there's a good case for going crazy, living dangerously and stepping outside of them for a moment (and clearly there is or there wouldn't have been so much discussion about it) then consensus should be gained on doing so. Which is what I now propose. Nsign (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * a) See below. b)&c) See WP:MOS, particularly WP:CAPS. d) Why should this article be treated differently from any other article that follows the same guidelines? Please provide reasons and sources justifying its "uniqueness" (excluding the above...which, again, are answered at WP:MOS and WP:CAPS)? And if "there's a good case for going crazy", then, as requested, please provide a reason, other than the ones above (which if you don't think are adequately addressed, please discuss at WT:MOS and WT:CAPS), and/or sources justifying it. DonQuixote (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I don't wish to walk in the circle you're inviting me to, but I've answered your questions already and I don't wish to discuss it anywhere else but here, which is where the issue lies. In addition, as SmokeyJoe has quite correctly cited: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."
 * This is one of those occasions for the reasons I've stated which are entirely logical and consistent with precedent and wikipedia policy. Consensus hasn't been reached, either. Nsign (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Er...no. You haven't answered my question. You just keep bringing forth things that have been debunked (for lack of a better word). So, again, why should this article be treated differently from other articles? And if you choose to state any of the things you stated above, see below or see WP:MOS or see WP:CAPS, because all you're doing is beating a dead horse...or walking in a circle (yep, you're doing that all by yourself). DonQuixote (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Simple - I'm not required to address why this should be different from every other article title because according to WP:MOS not every other article title follows or has to follow that guideline. Common sense can be used to build consensus on exceptions, which I what I now seek. The previous consensus was reached prior to the availability of new official sources that have since come to light. I've outline my main points further down the page. If the consensus disagrees so be it. Nsign (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are required to address it. Quoting you, "because according to WP:MOS not every other article title follows or has to follow that guideline". So, why doesn't this one have to follow the guideline? Please answer the question. And common sense is not a good basis for an argument: see WP:NOCOMMON and paradoxes. DonQuixote (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've already answered it below - edit of 09:34, 5 December 2012. Read it before repeatedly asking "why" like a knackered record when an answer has already been given. And if 'common sense' is defined as one of criteria for making decisions on WP:MOS, which it is, then common sense is one of the things we'll use. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, you keep not answering the question. (See below) DonQuixote (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur with having the title as Star Trek into Darkness. Wikipedia has a specific manual of style to be used here, which is based on real-world manual of styles. Like the guideline says, "Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility." I think it is important to realize that for film titles similar to this one, reliable sources will show "into/Into" and similar wording as either capitalized or not capitalized. So there's not truly a "wrong" answer; it is about what conventions to follow, and that is clear here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The title seems to have a double meaning..."Into Darkness" is a secondary title of "Star Trek"...but it also implies a Trek into Darkness, and this is where everyone is getting stuck. Look at any other movie with a secondary title...let's use Star Trek II as an example. It's called "Star Trek The Wrath of Khan", by your logic it should be "Star Trek the Wrath of Khan". No, the movie is called "Star Trek Into Darkness". The "i" should be capitalized. 108.200.33.106 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No - that's a bad example. That film is called Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.  Note the colon.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Manual of Style & Manual of Style/Capital letters: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."

The way the title is spoken, the way it is written (notably the poster), implies a colon, if rendered into plain text. Abrams failure to use a colon is a perversion of normal written English, which is to use written puctuation to reflect speech as spoken and to clarify meaning. Wikipeida's refusal to see the perversion, and to insist on absolute adherence to a style rule is similarly perverse.

We can reflect Abrams/Paramonts perversion, but we should not be perverse ourselves. "Star Trek" is the title. "Into Darkness" is the subtitle.

WP:MOS & MOS:CT do not speak to this situation (or to the extent they do, this is an exception, as it beyond the sort of cases imagined). This is a special case, and does not require any modification of a guideline and the guidelines are written in explicit expectation of exceptions.

for fun:


 * en: Star Trek into Darkness
 * ca: Star Trek XII
 * cs: Star Trek - Do temnoty
 * fr: Star Trek: Into Darkness
 * it: Star Trek into Darkness
 * he: סטארטרק: אל תוך החשיכה
 * pt: Star Trek Into Darkness
 * ru: Стартрек: Возмездие


 * IMDb: Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
 * Nearly every English secondary source: Star Trek Into Darkness

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "J. J. Abrams has stated that [...] this film will have no [...] subtitle used with a colon like The Next Generation's film series." --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's right. The film does not have a "subtitle used with a colon".  It has a subtitle used without a colon.  Expect to see a line feed and a font change on every use.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just your interpretation of it, which amounts to WP:OR. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am very familiar with WP:NOR. I am not violating WP:NOR.  Some degree of strictly defined OR (which is not per WP:NOR) is required and allowed in every editorial practice.  You are wrong about WP:NOR being significant a factor here.  However, I will respect that you (and others) hold a different interpretation, even though I can't understyand how you can accept that interpretation as reasonable.  Ultimately, external sources will clarify the title sentence structure.  The only short term concern is that inthe mean time we are looking silly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think consensus should be asked for on this. Its clearly divisive and a matter of opinion and the guidelines being cited as the reason for keeping it as "into" are merely guidelines, not set in stone. Nsign (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus has already been reached on this. The only "new information" is the poster, and any interpretation of the poster is simply that - an interpretation of the poster.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The poster says Star Trek Into Darkness. That's not an interpretation, its there for anyone to see. Nsign (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, in that case there's no new information, and consensus was already reached on how to deal with this title. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Incorrect - any consensus you refer to was reached before the poster was released. Nsign (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And as you've pointed out, the poster says "Star Trek Into Darkness". When consensus was reached, that was the title that was being debated.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Also, please could you use indentation properly). --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're deliberately avoiding the point - when consensus was reached there was no official written source for the title, so an argument could be made that the title could be interpreted as Star Trek into Darkness. There is now an official source confirming the title as Star Trek Into Darkness. Therefore consensus should now be sought in light of the actual title as opposed to the title some people simply seem to want. Nsign (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh and whatever Indent is - you can read and understand me perfectly fine without pointing me towards some additional technical hoop as a distraction. Nsign (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not avoiding anything. Prior to publication of the poster, we debated what to do if the title was "Star Trek Into Darkness".  You have agreed that consensus was reached prior to the poster.  Now you're saying we need to find a new consensus because the poster says "Star Trek Into Darkness".  But we already have consensus on the basis of this title, and that was to follow MOS:CT and leave it at Star Trek into Darkness.  Nothing to debate.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect - I've just had a good look at the archived talk page and consensus was neither reached nor sought. Its simply a longer and more ill-tempered version of the discussion now happening here without any satisfactory resolution. Nsign (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well there was, but if you really want to bring it up again, then you will need to state a convincing case as to why you think we should make an exception to established guidelines in this case. "They are just guidelines" is not a compelling argument.  And please use indentation properly this time.  I've corrected it from before.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Having looked at it again in case I missed something, I still do not see that any consensus was actually reached. I've already stated my case and, additionally, I do not simply state "They are just guidelines". I again quote Wikipedia's own words which state "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." So time for some consensus. Nsign (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the proposed move that I pointed you to, where the title was agreed by consensus and where it specifically mentions capitalisation in the rationale. As far as the "occasional exception" goes, you would need to demonstrate why it would be "common sense" not to follow the guideline in this case.  However, as we already have consensus and guidelines for the current page title, it seems pretty pointless.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That consensus was about the wording of the title, not the capitalisation. That can now be reviewed in the light of confirmation from previously unseen sources (the poster) and the arguments I've already put forward. So lets have a new one. If I'm wrong you've nothing to worry about and I'll be gracious in defeat. Nsign (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The move rationale specifically says "Star Trek Into Darkness will indeed be the title, although per WP:CAPS the "Into" must be lowercase". This proposal which specifically mentioned the capitalisation has consensus support.  And the "arguments" you claim have already put forward have yet to address why you think this title is unique and should be treated differently to every other article title.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Simple - I'm not required to address why this should be different from "every other article title" because according to WP:MOS not "every other article title" follows or has to follow that guideline. Common sense can be used to build consensus on exceptions, which I what I now seek. I've outline my main points further down the page. If the consensus disagrees so be it. Nsign (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that the "into" must be lowercase per WP:CAPS. This has been discussed numerous times, and I think that we should just leave the title as it is. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a lower case "into" per MOS. No need to make this some special exception to the rules. GRAPPLE  X  16:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think that it's clear the title should be Star Trek Into Darkness. Multiple sources have been cited in this argument to show that the capitalized "I" is the accepted title. The only evidence I've seen to the contrary are the Wikipedia guidelines, which state that "it will have occasional exceptions". If there ever was a case for WP:IAR, this is it. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But those sources either have their own MOS or don't follow a MOS. Wikipedia has its own MOS. And, as have been pointed out, a lot of publishers require their authors and editors to follow a MOS (the Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA Style Manual, derivatives of the two, or some other MOS). Wikipedia is one such publication (WP:MOS is based on the CMOS). So pointing to other publications' version of the title doesn't mean much. DonQuixote (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have always been a strong advocate for following Wikipedia guidelines, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The purpose of this discussion should be to build a consensus one way or the other, not to blindly disregard opinions, just because they don't adhere to a strict interpretation of Wikipedia rules and procedures. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We already have a consensus to follow the style guideline as per the move discussion. And how do you back up your claim "If there ever was a case for WP:IAR, this is it"?  Why?  What makes this special?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, The Trek Collective has a listing of several international versions of the poster here; they seem pertinent to this discussion. —  fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  23:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This looks straightforward to me. Wikipedia is entitled to set its own style guidelines, so it's irrelevant how other sources style the title. As per the MOS the "into" should be lowercase. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think if the title on official promotional materials including posters/website has it as "Into" then regardless of wikipedia's policy on it then that is how it should be portrayed. It is not up to us to change how the writers/producers have chosen to title their works. Grammar is a powerful thing, changing one letter can completely change its meaning. MisterShiney    ✉    00:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't adopt third party stylisations though. Cases like this are hardly uncommon, such as Gone with the Wind as opposed to Gone With the Wind, or Seven as opposed to Se7en. Betty Logan (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Betty. I don't understand the argument that this is what the promotional materials state anyway. If we are going by that, then we should be titling it "STAR TREK InTO DARKnESS". This isn't a question of content, it's a matter of style, so we should be following WP:MOS. BOVINEBOY 2008 03:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See also the images at Bridge over Troubled Water, How the West Was Won (TV series) and To Be or Not to Be (1983 film) for examples of Wikipedia not following the capitalisation of the individual works. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The frequent reversions of new drive-by title capitalisation edits, summarised by "rv...please read MOS:CT" are not really that helpful to anyone not automatically (mis)assuming that the title is a single, striaght-readthrough sentence. The central question is: Is "into" a midsentence preposition?  I think it is obviously is not a standard single sentence.  The only reason not to change the article is that multiple reasonale editors assert that they really believe that the title can be read as a single sentence. The evidence in the poster is the line feed and font change in that they imply a title and subtitle, and not standard single sentence.  The style choices in the poster are irrelevant.  I support what WP:MOS says.  WP:MOS does not include coverage of my central question above.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is correct to revert these "drive-by" changes, as the current title format has already been decided by consensus. And your interpretation of the intention of the sentence is irrelevant.  What you think might be intended is original research.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't speak to the "correctness" of the reverts. I spoke to the unfelpfulness of the edit summaries. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The previous consensus was reached prior to the availabilty of new official sources that have since been released. And your interpretation of the intention of the title as a sentence is also simply that - an interpretation that can also be considered original research. Nsign (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not interpreting anything. We have been given an unpunctuated sentence as a title.  I'm not assuming anything other than face value.  (and, again, watch your indents...)  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what you're doing. You're assuming its intended to be a sentence but you don't actually know. Precedent and common sense strongly suggest it is a title and a subtitle. As per WP:MOS, there are exceptions and common sense can be used to determine what they are. Your interpretation is merely that. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting that the Germans, who typically are sticklers for rules, have ignored the "Star Trek" part of the title and give only the big subtitle "Into Darkenss", as seen at http://www.thetrekcollective.com/2012/12/star-trek-into-darkness-around-world.html. Also interesting is that de.wikipedia.org doesn't yet consider the upcoming film worthy of mention.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is my argument in a nutshell for changing the heading to Star Trek Into Darkness:

1) The title has been confirmed as Star Trek Into Darkness - NOT Star Trek into Darkness - by the poster, by the official website and by the officially released synopsis from Paramount. None of these sources are open to interpretation - they are there for anyone to see - and none of them were available when the last 'consensus' was reached. The entry should therefore reflect the actual title based on the official sources.

2) I am repeatedly asked why the article should be treated differently from other articles following the same guidelines. Simple - the guideline regarding manual of style is prefaced with the following: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Those who are arguing for Star Trek into Darkness are arguing that the title is a sentence and not a heading with a subtitle. I submit that common sense is required here based on the following precedents: Across 40 years, eleven feature films, 5 TV series and assorted other media, how many other examples can we find of this precedent being followed? Answer: none (at least that I'm aware of). To assume that that is what is now intended, and in addition, ignoring the capitalisation from the official sources already mentioned above, is (pardon the pun) illogical, and those who are arguing for it know it. JJ Abrams has stated there is no colon. He has not stated it is intended to be a complete phrase, and to make a judgement on this requires that we look at precedents already set. This is why the article heading should be subject to one of the aforementioned "occasional exceptions", rather than sticking like jobsworths in a computer-says-no fashion to a guideline that is in fact open to consensus and a common-sense application of logic.

To quote some inspirational words from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, "Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily follow that we must do that thing". Nsign (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is all original research. The title is a single sentence and as such should be treated as one.  Until we have evidence to the contrary we should not be making assumptions based on precedent.  Especially when the director himself has stated that the title is unpunctuated.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you're assuming the title is a single sentence. Just because its unpunctuated does not mean its a sentence. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that not the definition of a single sentence? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not when it comes to film/book/TV titles, no.


 * With respect, I'm not interested in exchanging circular replies with you. I am asking for the opinion of as many people as possible to build consensus. The preface to the guideline says "use common sense". As there is no clear definition here of what constitutes "common sense", I have used precedent as part of the argument for the exception. There is nothing to say I can't. We can both be said to be making our own interpretations, to a degree - you are assuming its a sentence, but you don't actually know. I think its a heading and a subtitle, and I could also be wrong, but based on precedents, and using logical common sense as the guideline permits me to do, I don't think I am. So I think neither of us will gain anything from simply repeating ourselves. As I said, I seek consensus based on the information now available and using common sense. If I don't get it then hey - I'll make a brew, have a smoke and get on with my day. Nsign (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet exchanging circular replies is exactly what you are doing. Consensus has already been reached as demonstrated.  Maybe we'll see further information down the line, maybe we won't, but there's nothing concrete to support a further move just now.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As I have already pointed out consensus was reached prior to the availability of official confirmation of the title via sources including the website, synopsis and poster, and on the assumption that it was a sentence, an assumption that is open to interpretation. Nsign (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (EC)Given the precedents, Bridge over Troubled Water, How the West Was Won (TV series) and To Be or Not to Be (1983 film); the posters, "STAR TREK InTO DARKnESS"; and Abrams' statement that it's not a subtitle, "common sense" (and the current consensus) favors "Star Trek into Darkness". So...please explain why this article should be an exception to all that, otherwise you're just blowing smoke. And also please remember that different publications may have different MOSes. DonQuixote (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You give 3 precedents from unrelated movies - fair enough. I give a precedent set across a 40 year franchise, 5 television series and eleven movies.


 * Again - see above for "why". Its there in black and white. Read it. But I'm looking for consensus from other users, not you.


 * Incidentally - where is this Abrams quote that it isn't a subtitle? I see a link to a Spanish article that I can't read but nothing else. However I can find a quote from Abrams saying that if they make a sequel, "it would have a subtitle instead of a number." (http://trekmovie.com/2009/06/04/report-from-mexico-city-star-trek-press-conference-w-pictures-video/. Nsign (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I'll correct myself by saying that "the title (by design) does not include a colon" (from the same site that you cite http://trekmovie.com/2012/09/07/exclusive-star-trek-sequel-title-confirmed/).
 * As to the precedents, the three that I provided were precedents for the "common sense" use of the MOS...which begs the question why this article should be treated differenty. As for "a precedent set across a 40 year franchise, 5 television series and eleven movies", all of those involve a subtitle, or colon, so they're unrelated to this one where "by design" it's unlike any of those things in the 40 year franchise. So, there is no precedent in Star Trek, but there are precedents in similar wikipedia articles. The presedencts still favor "Star Trek into Darkness". DonQuixote (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Betty Logan, but it's not a third party saying it. WE are the third party as an encyclopaedia and have it wrong according to how they (the producers/directors/writers) have released it. If it was like the previous Star Trek films, such as Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek: First Contact etc, with the ":" we would have capitalised it.
 * Rob Sinden Please note that Consensus can change and I would argue (and other editors it would seem) that reaching a consensus before the release of official materials is all very well, but would surely change once those materials have been released.
 * I admire editors for their adherence to policies and guidelines but, don't forget we are an encyclopaedia and it is our job to be encyclopaedic about these things and if IMDB (I know it's not a reliable source, but it is like Wikipedia in that it is user contributed), Empire Magazine and the Star Trek website all capitalise the I, then we should too! It is a good example of when to use common sense of which the already said mentions of policies say we should do. It is not our place to grammatically correct a film title just because we can. Don't forget that it is not a sentence, it is a title and as such does not follow the standard grammar rules. Rarely have I seen a book title with a full stop at the end.
 * It seems to me that a consensus cannot be reached at the moment as the same editors are going round in circles. So we may have to go to an Dispute Resolution board with this. MisterShiney    ✉    17:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Holy hell, you guys are still squabbling over this? I've been away for a month and you were squabbling about it then! RAP (talk) 18:15 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia and as such you should have the actual as released titles correctly portrayed. Regardless of the policy regarding grammar. A point to note that it seems that the caps policy mentioned is referring to content within an article and not the grammar within a title. 213.208.91.173 (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NCCAPS covers it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But, that is not how the film has been released. As an encyclopaedia it's not our place to correct grammar that Abrams has put in his title. 213.208.91.173 (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with grammar. It's a stylistic choice.  And as a publication, we have every right to make our own in-house stylistic choices.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That user is right, we are an ENCYCLOPAEDIA, which means as such we need to portray the title as it has been released in its Press Releases. This is one of those scenarios where editors need to Use common sense. If we were talking about article content, then I would be right behind everyone with a big banner with flashing lights (unless we were talking about the title. I guess the question remains as to why Abrams decided to be all clever and not use a : this time around! His fault! lol   MisterShiney    ✉    07:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have to start using "common sense" as your argument, then you really don't have anything to argue with and are just throwing around buzzwords. It's also "common sense" for an encyclopedia to have a MOS, and it's also "common sense" that a MOS is there for a reason, which is that it's "to help editors produce articles with consistent, clear, and precise language, layout, and formatting". DonQuixote (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Argue? Im not arguing. I am discussing. If I was arguing I would call us all Asshats for being so stupid about arguing over a capital letter. We all have passion for making this article the best that it could be and capitalising a single letter isnt going to stop it from being a GA status in the slightest. I am using the "common sense" argument as you put it because the Policies and guidelines states that "Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." and common sense would dictate that in this case (each case being taken on an individual basis, cant talk for other pages like "Gone with the wind") we look at the materials being released and use that as the decider when there is such a heated discussion on the matter. MisterShiney    ✉    13:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Er...an "argument" is what you bring to a discussion, and "to argue" is to present your argument.
 * And "capitalising a single letter isnt going to stop it from being a GA status in the slightest"...pot, kettle, black. If it isn't that important, then please stop trying to change it. And you're making a fundamental error in you "argument". "Common sense" is to be used when doing an action. It should not be used as an argument to support an action, especially when that "common sense" is challenged. The "common sense" of the consensus is to defer to the MOS. DonQuixote (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And we are back to the beginning of the circle! Because that is all we are going around in. Give us (users pro I) a Policy that says that we should use our own MOS on titles that are presented differently from the wiki MOS. There isnt one. All that is being quoted is standard policies that don't seem to take into consideration exceptions to the rule and materials released by producers and reliable sources that all report the same thing. Im thinking that a DR needs to be opened up. It's not going to be solved in a way that both sides agree on otherwise.  MisterShiney    ✉    13:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * MOS:TM might cover it: "...regardless of the preference of the trademark owner..." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Title and Subtitle: Not a Single Sentence
The official foreign posters show that the title is composed of a title and a subtitle. See http://www.thetrekcollective.com/2012/12/star-trek-into-darkness-around-world.html?m=1 The title and subtitle can be swapped, and the title can even be omitted, leaving "Into Darkness" as the entire title. This is not a question of style, but of altered meaning. A lower case i changes the meaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The foreign posters don't mean much since, historically, titles have been known to change during translation. Case in point, one of the titles is translated as "Star Trek: Vengeance". Also, they're not obligated to follow an English MOS. DonQuixote (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the new teaser, and at the end, the words "INTO DARKNESS" appear prominently for several beats before "STAR TREK" appears in smaller words (like on the poster) above it. After seeing this, I realize that the filmmakers are trying to have it both ways: "Star Trek: Into Darkness" and "Star Trek into Darkness". That is why this has been such an issue here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the thing to do here is call time, and wait a while until something more concrete is known, rather than jump to our own conclusions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree completely that we're meant to see it both ways, as a subtitle and as a sentence. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. But using a lower case "i" forces the readers to only see one version even though all the promotional material seems to push the other. --DocNox (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah! That is what the above editors have been saying since the title came out! lol. I dont think it would be us using our own conclusions to put it how it is supposed to be portrayed as it has been released by, not in the correct English as we feel it should be, if anything WE are imposing our own views by putting it up grammatically. I really dont see how it is jumping to our own conclusions by portraying the title how it is has been released in pretty much every press release by the production companies. MisterShiney    ✉    07:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As have been pointed out, it has nothing to do with "conclusions" but with style. By style it's either "Star Trek: Into Darkness" or "Star Trek into Darkness". The choice between the two has been made by the official sources which has denied the first version. So, no, we're not the ones imposing our views...we're just writing what they say in our style which is set forth by our MOS. DonQuixote (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To get over your MOS thing, all you have to do it accept that "into" is not a midsentence preposition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, official sources say otherwise (it's not a subtitle and there's no colon). DonQuixote (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Show me a relible source that says it is not a subtitle period. I have shown you posters that show subtitles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Official sources? Official sources capitalise the I!!!! So by your own argument the I should be capitalised!! You are unbelievable! lol MisterShiney    ✉    13:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point. The MoS the producers use is irrelevant, as we here at Wikipedia implement our own MoS.  We don't source the style.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. As an encyclopaedia we should be accurately portraying details about the film. Including how the title is presented. they may have their own front styles etc, but with such a clear choice on how they have titled the film, it should be followed. It's not a case of MoS, its a case of presenting the facts. MisterShiney    ✉    14:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The "fact" is that they use a different MOS then we do. That's about it. DonQuixote (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, according to our manual of style, it's either "Star Trek into Darkness" (midsentence preposition) or "Star Trek: Into Darkness" (not a midsentence preposition). If you disagree with those two options, then discuss at WT:CAPS or WT:CAPS. Or you can show how this article should be an exception because of some unique quality. As for "interpretation", the official sources say that there's no colon, so make of that what you will. DonQuixote (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Its an exception because its how the title has has been released. In this case, our manual of style is incorrect. Especially if we want to be able to accurately portray information about the film which is one of the aims of wikipedia. The 5th Pillar of Wikipedia says that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. "Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles..." this is one of those exceptions!  MisterShiney    ✉    14:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that doesn't make it unique, so it's not an exception. Other movies have played with fonts and capitalization as well, and other similar wikipedia articles have deferred to the MOS.
 * And as for "Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time...sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule"...that's what we're asking you to show us. Show how this article should be an exception, show us how it's unique. DonQuixote (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The uniqueness here that justifies an exception is that blind application changes the meaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Er...no. A punctuation changes the meaning. A "blind application" just differentiates the capitalization style. DonQuixote (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What?? I don't follow. It is unique (unusual) because by converting the I to lowercase limits the way the title can be read. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See response below. DonQuixote (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The title is unique in that it is both a midsentence preposition and a subtitle. Having a lowercase "i" or a colon would make it only one or the other when it is the filmmakers' intention for it to actually work as both. This makes the title not fit with almost any MOS so it should be an exception. --DocNox (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's interpretation, which leads to OR. And the official sources have specifically said that "by design" it's not a subtitle. You need a source to verify your interpretation to in turn verify that it's unique. DonQuixote (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * DonQuixote, what source says that "it's not a subtitle"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek into Darkness all mean the same thing, no matter the capitalization. Star Trek: Into Darkness means a very specific thing TITLE: SUBTITLE. The sources cited in this article say that there's no colon, so it's not TITLE: SUBTITLE. Stating that INTO DARKNESS is a subtitle based on the poster art is interpretation, and thus original research, with the precedents being stylized titles on posters such as Gone with the Wind, To Kill a Mockingbird, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, there is no source that says "there is no subtitle"? Let's be clear, because twice you have come very close to stating the opposite. Do you believe that it is impossible to have a subtitle without explicit punctuation?  (usually a colon). Your examples concern mere styling. I have no trouble looking past mere styling. This case is different because the lowercase i impacts the meaning of the title. The posters are useful in that they show title/subtitle use, not because of their use of capitalisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A colon is used when there is no other punctuation that ends the main title. There needs to be something that says that one bit is the title and the other bit is the subtitle. A simple capitalization isn't enough as per the all caps example. The lowercase i (or uppercase i) doesn't impact the title any more than all caps. DonQuixote (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * RE: Your first two sentences and link. Yes.  However, it's not me or you who need to read that.  It's Abrams and Paramont.  They are being perverse, probably on purpose, possibly to create a double meaning as others have suggested. The lowercase i prevents the reader from being able to recognise the intended title/subtile construction that is evident in posters, spoken speech, and precedent in previous titles.  It therefore impacts the meaning of the title.  "Trek" in "Star Trek" is never before used as a verb, but as a noun meaning "a journey involving challenge and adventure", and there is nothing (except the missing colon) to indicate that this film is any different.  Conceivably, the cryptic meaning is that the "Star Trek [franchise is moving] into Darkness", but to conclude that is far more WP:OR than to read a title/subtitle.  It is also at odds with the Russian translation, where "vengence" is synonymous with "Darkness".  (In Russian, "dark" has nuances more in the direction of tragedy or cruel-fate, and less of the English nuance of evil-morality). So.  I think to make the lower i is to make an error.  It would be better to insert a colon, or a dash, or a slash, although I don't say these are acceptable.  Maybe we should go back to "Star Trek 12", and leave it to the lede to present title ambiguities.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's all your speculation and interpretation, which falls under original research. Without further information, it's just STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS or Star Trek Into Darkness or Star Trek into Darkness. WP:MOS chooses the last one of the three. DonQuixote (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:NOR (I have seen it, you don't need to bluelink it), thinking that your original research in declaring that it is not a subtitle if anything is worse. Of your three options, your first is absurd, why do you present it, it is an outrageous failing to meet our MOS.  The second is a minor deviation that's just a bit weird, with something funny going on in the middle.  Our MOS is pretty normal, and seeing the second makes me think "where's the colon".  The third reads unambiguously as a single sentence, and there is straight-forward evidence that a single sentence reading is a mistaken interpretation.  I'd rather present the second, bit weird looking title than the third probably wrong title.  You differ.  Given uncertainty, I think that as a rule, Wikipedia should defer to what its sources do, which in this rare case means compromising on our MOS.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the propensity for people to point to sources, all three versions have been used by independent sources (yes, even the all caps), so "deferring" to sources don't help. Unless shown otherwise, there is no inherent difference between the three versions. Although you have tried to show a difference, without verification, those fall under original research. And where's the "straight-forward evidence that a single sentence reading is a mistaken interpretation"? If you can show that, from a reliable source, then there wouldn't be this debate. DonQuixote (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By defer to sources, I mean that given that reliable sources are not yet helpful, defer to the overwhelming secondary sources. Do a news search on the title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, we all know that this could go on, rather pedantically, forever as both points of view depend on a degree of assumption and interpretation - that's why we're having some consensus below instead of beating a dead horse. But as to the point, "There needs to be something that says that one bit is the title and the other bit is the subtitle" - the difference in font sizes, seperation and capitalisation from official source, coupled with the creators' statement that it would be subtitled, and the precedent set by 40 years of Star Trek history that 'Star Trek' is a heading and has never been part of a sentence - count as "something". The MOS guidelines allow for exceptions based on reasoning and evidence which is what that is. The assumption that it is a complete sentence is merely an interpretation, not a fact, and the weight of evidence suggests its an incorrect one. Now I'm going to have some beer, watch Wrath of Khan to chill out and wait for a consensus. I suggest others do the same before this becomes more circular than a Dyson Sphere. Nsign (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regretfully it has been going round in circles more times than a 8 year old girl can do a hulla hoop! I am way ahead of you on the beer front. Need ST:WoK on DVD :( lol MisterShiney    ✉    20:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If this movie ends up being an even-numbered dud, I will be so disappointed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Asinine
This is seriously the most asinine discussion I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I haven't come back to look at Wikipedia in a long time and am literally astonished that this is still an open 'dispute'. As so many have come along and stated, almost every (literally perhaps 99.9%) mainstream source title it the same way. Wikipedia should reflect reality, period. Manual of Style are just suggestions/guidelines not hardline rules, but clearly User:Robsinden has something to prove by exerting ownership of this article/title as well as erroneous enforcement of Wikipedia guidelines (especially when they go and modify articles which I've cited support arguments against theirs, see and then ). This is exactly the type if ridiculous dispute that makes so many people laugh at Wikipedia when it appears to the outside world that Wikipedians insist on ignoring reality and doing things their own way just to be elitist snobs. Thorncrag   16:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What the fuck? Why are you singling me out and accusing me of acting in bad faith?  You're citing moves that, as I seem to recall, were moved after a discussion at WikiProject Film, addressing the issue with mistitled articles.  I think Erik might remember.  I think you owe me an apology.  Either that, or my actions are so bad that I require investigating.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, fuck it. I'm taking this further.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * References fixed. Sorry.       Thorncrag    16:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not an apology. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, right - I see what you're getting at. You tried to use something as an example for precedent, and then didn't like it when Erik and I fixed the titling errors that you pointed out, per the MOS.  What exactly do you think was wrong with our actions at that time?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Could it be that Wikipedia will not explode because the freaking title of an article is written to represent the outside world? Which a lot of people come along here and try to do?  Seriously what are you and the others trying to prove here?  Have you thought about that?  Why is it you choose to battle and die on this hill for something so remarkably unimportant?  I haven't commented on Wikipedia in months, I really couldn't care less about the title, but what I do care about though is how delusional instances like this are portrayed to the outside world, especially when it is sticklers who smoke out the majority with some sort of righteous indignation when it really does not serve the project at all.       Thorncrag    16:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was going to say saying that the user has claimed ownership of the article was a little extreme, but seeing all his "edits" to the article laid out like that, I can see what you mean, the edit summary show a lot of reverts (that is not an accusation, just an observation). It is also interesting to see that any article this editor has come across that does not support his stance has been edited by quoting the same policy and that the previous discussion has been archived without a clear consensus being reached and as a result is the long winded winded discussion we find ourselves in. Oh and please dont swear. It can escalate discussions quickly and demanding an apology isn't exactly polite or a way to build good relations and reach a consensus.
 * It should also be pointed out that MOS:CAPS also includes MOS:CT which says "In the English titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.), every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words (as defined below). The first and last words in a title are always capitalized." Into could be considered an important word in the title, which is why it is capitalised in the film title. MisterShiney    ✉    16:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "A way to build good relations" is to not join in with this victimisation! I feel entitled to say "fuck" right now.  As far as my edit history of this page goes, there's nothing unusual about that.  Before about a week ago, we had consensus for a lower case "i", and I was just enforcing that.  With those moves, I was following guidelines, something that previous editors were not, and correcting inconsistencies in Wikipedia, along with other editors.   If everyone has such a problem with the guideline, they should take it up at the relevant MOS talk page.  Demonstrate how I acted in bad faith or apologise.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And it isn't my stance. It's Wikipedia's.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologise for what? To my knowledge I have nothing to apologise for. If you feel I do then please point it out or go to the relevant board and take the required steps. You are not being victimised, he was just pointing out that your edits make him think that you feel you own the article. Again, if you feel you have then go to the relevant Admin Board.
 * If you edit something that has been identified as a precedent for that persons argument then it is an automatic conflict of interest. You cant do that hiding behind "Oh I am just following this policy" otherwise whats the point in discussing something? MisterShiney    ✉    17:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If "Wikipedia shouldn't impose its own grammar/style onto the article", why do we have lengthy manuals of style? --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was referring to titles. MoS's have their place, mainly in academic topics, but concessions do need to be made when it comes to entertainment/fictional articles like this one. MisterShiney    ✉    20:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

So here is what I propose, rather than going round and round in circles. Everyone puts their views in the respective sections below. -edit- Please use previous section for discussion on points raised.

Robsinden: "And it isn't 'my stance'. Its wikipedias". With respect - bollocks and you know it. The guideline is flexible and exceptions can be made. You're the one making the arguments, not wikipedia. Nsign (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments and reasons for Into
Because it has all got confusing in a tit for tat fashion and lots of circles going round and round, please put all comments/reasons For the capitalisation below. Please continue the "discussion" if you wish in the above sections.

Comment I shall add more as and when I find suitable references/discussion points. MisterShiney   ✉    17:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) As per Policies and guidelines, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. Common sense in this case will dictate that if the people who wrote the film put it in caps then it is meant to be in caps, regardless of our policy.
 * 2) Wikipedia appears to be the only source that hasn't capitalised it because it appears that it insists on sticking to the letter of it's  polices. Which funnily enough, have the above clause in to allow for a situation such as this where a compromise on the policy can be reached on said policies.
 * 3) Users that cite MOS:CAPS for having it lower case seems to neglect the part of MOS:CT (part of the same policy) which says that In the English titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.), every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words (as defined below). The first and last words in a title are always capitalized. if the word wasn't important, then it again wouldn't have been capitalised in every press release and article since the title was announced.
 * 4)  As per the Five pillars of Wikipedia Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone and the principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rules and because Wikipedia aims to be a neutral compilation of verifiable, established facts it needs to be Into because the verifiable, established facts say that the title is "Star Trek Into Darkness" to be a proper compilation, it needs to reflect this information as it is portrayed! Neutrality would also imply that Wikipedia shouldn't impose its own grammar/style onto the article.
 * I feel that if the makers of the film are marketing it as "Into Darkness", i feel it's only appropriate to follow their preference. I understand it's more common to lowercase it, but in this case common capitalization should take a backseat to the film's selected title. RAP (talk) 21:41 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Every piece of promotional material for the film, the trailer and the poster both format it as a subtitle. And apparently in Germany the title is just "Into Darkness", no Star Trek at all. Other countries even have the title as "Into Darkness: Star Trek". So obviously it's meant to be a subtitle. The filmmakers' insistence that there is no colon is not them saying it isn't a subtitle. It's them trying to be clever by having it work as subtitle as well as a single sentence. A colon or a lowercase "i" ruins the word play. --DocNox (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The only place on the official website that doesn't stylise everything all caps instead capitalises the 'Into'. This also follows my general (self-admitted over-zealous) capitalisation of everything in a title, so I'm slightly biased to this side of matters. Also, various other relatively reliable sources (see Apple Trailers and Yahoo! Movies) capitalise the 'Into', although I don't know whether this is down to their personal MOS. Now to play devil's advocate below... drewmunn (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also, I think capitalisation helps to muddy the waters as far as the subtitle debate goes. It blurs the line between single sentence and two lines without defining the difference, so it remains as ambiguous as the current official stance. With a lowercase 'into', it forces it into a single sentence structure no matter what. drewmunn (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above, I've now dug around Paramount's site and other places, and found that they titled their YouTube video release of their trailer "Star Trek Into Darkness", and in the description section again re-iterate that style. Now, considering that's not usually how they render it, I'd say that's how they want others to render it. As it comes directly from Paramount, and corroborates the style in the title of the official site, I say it's the most reliable source I've found to support the capitalisation. drewmunn (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Those arguing for “into” are assuming the title is a complete sentence on the basis that it is not punctuated, an argument that is open to interpretation as film/book/TV titles etc do not always follow conventional grammatical rules. I argue that it consists of a title and a subtitle on the following grounds:

- The difference in font size, spacing and lettering style of the two phrases on the poster, on the official website and now the teaser trailer clearly indicate that they are a title and a subtitle. Sentences are not generally split or differentiated in this way.

- Additionally, the creator of the work, JJ Abrams, has never said that Star Trek Into Darkness is a sentence or that he ever intended to make Star Trek part of a sentence. He IS however quoted as saying that the sequel “would have a subtitle instead of a number." (http://trekmovie.com/2009/06/04/report-from-mexico-city-star-trek-press-conference-w-pictures-video/. This is pretty clear evidence that the title fulfils that intention.

- Finally, the guideline allows for exceptions based on “common sense” (a woolly concept, so for our purposes, let’s call it consensus based on logic, reasoning and precedents). So why should this article be exempt from others following that rule? Well, across 40 years, eleven feature films, 5 TV series and assorted other media, how many other examples can we find of this precedent being followed? Answer: none (at least that I'm aware of). To assume that that is what is now intended, and in addition, ignoring the capitalisation from the official sources already mentioned above, is illogical and those who are arguing for it know it. To make a judgement on an issue that is admitted by both sides of this debate to be open to interpretation requires that we look at precedents already set. And where is the most relevant area to look for guidance? Bridge over Troubled Water? How the West was Won?

No. Why? Because no one could ever reasonably assume or interpret those phrases to be anything other than a complete sentence. “Bridge Over” or “How The West” were never used on their own, anywhere, as headings. There is no “Bridge Over: Calm Water”, or “How The West: Was Really Dangerous”. I suggest that it makes rather more sense to look for precedents and guidance from a more relevant source. Something more directly relatable to this topic. In short – the Star Trek franchise. Because this is part of the Star Trek franchise. Star Trek is and always has been a heading, not part of a sentence. The weight of available, viewable evidence, coupled with the creators’ statement on the matter and the precedent set in 40 years worth of Star Trek history, strongly suggest it still is. The only argument offered here for reading it as “Star Trek into Darkness” is that there’s a guideline for it - a guideline that is in fact open to consensus and a common-sense application of logic based on evidence. So let's use it. Nsign (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments and reasons for into
Because it has all got confusing in a tit for Įtat fashion and lots of circles going round and round, please put all comments/reasons Against the capitalisation below. Please continue the "discussion" if you wish in the above sections.
 * To put it simply from MOS:CT: "The words that are not capitalized (unless they are the first or last word of the title) are: Prepositions containing four letters or fewer (of, to, in, for, on, with, etc.; [except] for instances where these words are not used as prepositions)." If anyone has issue with the Wiki-standard, they should take it up with MOS and not here. The movie creators/ producers wish to discern this movie from any of the other 20 Star Trek movies ever made, by not using Roman numerals or colons, therefore, we, as an encyclopedia should honor both our standards and their wishes. Worse case scenario: we put the additional (stylized as Star Trek Into Darkness) after the article title in the lead. It should also be noted that our MOS is taken from most style manuals from around the world. Ours is not exclusive and should never be. — WylieCoyote 21:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An additional (stylized as Star Trek Into Darkness) after the article title in the lede is a very good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is pretty cut and dry that "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS" should be capitalized as it is now by WP:NCCAPS/MOS:CT, into is a four-letter preposition not being used in a prepositional phrase. However, it does appear that "Into Darkness" is a subtitle. Before I were to support such a capitalization, I would like to see some punctuation before "into", either a colon or a dash or something. Either that, or I would like to see overwhelming sources referring to the film as just "Into Darkness". This would make it evident that the published media is treating it as a subtitle. I cannot give any weight to arguments supporting a move because of styling or because of matching promotional material, as such is not a determining factor in Wikipedia's naming conventions for articles. That is both of my cents, and I don't really have a dog in this race. BOVINEBOY 2008 22:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is (well, should be) a pretty open and shut case. The title is beholden to our internal manual of style, much as any title which has seen a stylised version of itself marketed on promotional items—we don't have articles titled Gone With the Wind, Se7en, L4yer CakƐ or Thir13en Ghosts, after all, because these stylistic choices are made by agencies not working with the same MOS as us. There's no need to make an exception here to glorify a grammatical error made by someone who isn't working with our ruleset. GRAPPLE   X  23:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer it with capitalisation, but I don't think we should forgo the MOS without definite grounds to. Most sources I've found list the title in all caps, which leads me to think that we should stick by our MOS for clarification for now. I've not found any sources I'd class as reliable who use that way of rendering the title, but that doesn't really say much; BBFC, a source I'd otherwise happily cite, lists it as 'STAR TREK - INTO DARKNESS', so there's definitely no consensus. I say that we stick to MOS, and if we get any clarification from an official source (hopefully we can), then we change it. Sratch the last statement, see part I'm about to add above. drewmunn (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a clear case of WP:MOS and MOS:CT. Although, as mentioned above, the guidelines are flexible, it requires some reason or verification that this article is unique and an exception to the guidelens, rather than just "the guidelines are flexible" or "common sense". (Note: "common sense" also says that the guidelines are there for a reason.) Also, "meant to be" is interpretation and OR, so that's an invalide line of argument from Wikipedia's view. Finally, what other sources print is important in terms of facts and analyses, other source's MOS is irrelevant to Wikipedia's MOS. DonQuixote (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

How is "Star Trek Into Darkness" wrong, and "iPod" right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.196.53 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Conclusions
It would seem, after a few days that a consensus has been reached for the capitalisation than against it...? There seems to be more reasons for it than against it. MisterShiney   ✉    16:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not an uninvolved party, so I do not think you can draw that conclusion. If you want, you can kick off a request to move, and an uninvolved admin can review the discussion and close it accordingly. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't drawing anything Erik. Hence why I didn't just make the change. I was putting it to everyone else for us to decide together after seeing everyone's points, which had been lost in the "discussion" rather than aimlessly involving admins. MisterShiney    ✉    17:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Though this isn't the normal voting method to find concensus, I think a concensus is already obvious. Even in the pro-lowercasing arguments, there is lament regarding the preference for uppercasing "Into".  I'm not going to continue the debate itself here, but I would say that enough work as been done to justify the move. The formal move request page doesn't seem necessary, though I wouldn't complain if we re-pursued this discussion there. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  18:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think formalising the RM is absolutely necessary at this stage. There is a large portion of opinion against the capitalisation, and any controversial page moves should be brought to Requested_moves. Betty Logan (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for that. My fault. I was trying to read it all and everything was going round and round in circles, with little or no clear structure as to what people were saying. Not wanting to look like a whining child running off to parents, I for one was reluctant to get Admins involved. Although I would of done had it not been revolved after this. I wont make the change as I am a party, so if you could (as an independent party) that would be great. MisterShiney    ✉    18:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, would be nice to finally see sense and have the title fixed. Still, even with all the above arguments and clear explanations I'm surprised not to see another post saying, "But you haven't explained 'why'...." Nsign (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to weigh in on this. I checked StarTrek.com, Paramount's official website. They list the film as Star Trek Into Darkness with no colon and the i in into capitalized. http://www.startrek.com/article/check-out-new-star-trek-into-darkness-image & http://www.startrek.com/database_articles Shouldn't what Paramount calls the film that they own and produced be the ultimate deciding factor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonOfThornhill (talk • contribs) 14:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have now begun a request to move the article. Please can you add your support or opposition so we can make this swift? Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Cumberatch is Gary Mitchell
http://geektyrant.com/storage/0999-post-images/cumberbatch20190128.jpeg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1355169342917 New photo released by Paramount, clearly shows Cumberbatch in some form of glass prison, watched by Kirk and Spock. It is almost identical to the scene in TOS "Where No Man Has Gone Before" when Kirk and Spock attempt to imprison Gary Mitchell on Delta Vega to stop his powers. If you have seen the original scene, it is obvious that this is a recreation, effectively confirming that Cumberbatch is Mitchell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.43.85 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe this to be another Red Herring. That source isnt a Reliable source. This article: http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/10/new-image-from-star-trek-into-darkness-features-cumberbatch-villain-w-kirk-spock/ which other articles seem to cite say that "So now who do you think the villain is?" which to me says, "We lie!" MisterShiney   ✉    22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop drawing conclusions based on conjecture - this isn't the place for it. We use official sources to identify characters, not guesses based on whether scenes look similar to other ones. Nsign (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)