Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/Archive 3

Examples
Men into Space, Journey into Space, Pathways into Darkness, Journey into Mystery, Adventure into Fear, Lean into It, Step into Christmas, Falling into You, Falling into Infinity, Long Day's Journey into Night, Born into Brothels, Crash into Me, Collapse into Now, Come into My World, Fade into You, Dream into Action, I'm into Something Good, Hammer into Anvil, Got to Get You into My Life. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of examples like this on Wikipedia that correctly follow MOS:CT. While it is true that a small number of composition titles do not follow the guideline, I've seen none thus far (after looking for half an hour) that could be legitimate exceptions. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you consider commenting at Talk:He%27s_Just_Not_That_into_You_(film)? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, you've got too much time on your hands. And anyway those examples are irrelevant if its a subtitle and its also been argued that if it is a phrasal verb then into should be capitalised. Which would technically mean that some of the above 'into's' should be capitalised too, but I 'aint going there. Nsign (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah - that's a can of worms that I don't want to open either, but some of those examples could be considered phrasal verbs, so per MOS:CT should probably be capitalised. However, I don't think that this is the case with the title of this page, which is what we're discussing here...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For all of our sanity, I think we should open a discussion elsewhere to clarify the styling of "into" in the future. None of that would help us in this case, really, if we're still deciding whether it's a subtitle. I don't think it is; I'm inclined to believe it's a phrasal verb, but there we are. drewmunn (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking into this a bit further, per MOS:CT, we should capitalise particles of phrasal verbs. If we are to assume that "trek" is a verb, then "into" is not a particle of a phrasal verb but a preposition that introduces the prepositional phrase "into darkness" and therefore shouldn't be capitalised.  It also means that the examples given above are correct per MOS:CT --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, I don't mind admitting this is started to bend my head a bit. I don't see how "into" can't be a particle of a phrasal verb if Trek is the verb and darkness is the noun. Nsign (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Trek into" isn't a phrasal verb. "Trek" is the verb, the "into" is just the bit that explains where you're trekking - "into darkness", "up the hill", "down the pub".  "Pick up" would be a phrasal verb - it means something different from just the two words taken together.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'm not enough of a linguist to know I'm afraid. Are there any grammar experts who can weigh in on this? Nsign (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's some examples.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not being purposefully contentious as I can see this is a genuine attempt to resolve a pretty tricky question, but unless I'm missing something I think the examples on that list have disproved your own theory - the phrasal verbs are in bold :
 * break into something", get back into something, grow into something, look into something, run into something. Trek Into would follow the same pattern. Nsign (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From the Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus: phrasal verb is defined as: a phrase that consists of a verb plus an adverbial or prepositional particle, especially one the meaning of which cannot be deduced from the constituents. The trouble is whether or not trek is being used a verb, or as part of a noun (Star Trek). Confusing as hell. douts (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's too confusing for me. Seeing as it's about 30 minutes until the 7 days, I'm going to go to sleep in the corner... drewmunn (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What happens when the 30 minutes are up, are we transported to an Encounter at Farpoint-style courtroom :) Nsign (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, nothing much. Although I'm proposing a change to the format in which the proposer and the most vocal opposer play a game of Live Chess. drewmunn (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The examples you give have idiomatic meanings, i.e. as a whole they don't mean the same as their constituent words. Take "run into".  If it means you encounter someone you haven't seen for a while, then it's a phrasal verb.  If it means that you literally run into a shop, then it isn't.  There is no idiomatic meaning to "trek into", so whether or not "trek" is intended for use as a noun or as a verb, "into" does not form a part of a phrasal verb, but always a preposition.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it? Anyone? This is now in a pretty sticky grammatical area. I still really don't see how Trek Into can't be a phrasal verb given the definitions and examples we have. But that could just be my brain shutting down now. Nsign (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What could "trek into" mean, other than exactly what it literally means? Another example: "stand by".  It could mean "stand by" as in "hold on" (both phrasal verbs as it happens in this context), as in "wait a minute", or it could literally mean to stand by something.  As in "stand by your man" (non-phrasal).  And likewise, "hold on" would be phrasal if you meant "wait a minute", but non-phrasal if you literally meant to hold on to something. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Having looked again I think it is idiomatic. If its a noun, as in Trek The Franchise, rather than part of Space Journey, its two different things. Star Trek in this case is either being used as a brand name, and the title means 'the franchise is going into dark territory', or it is a sentence intended to have a (presumably) more poetic meaning of 'space journey into an area with poor lighting'. Nsign (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is a noun then why are we even talking about phrasal verbs, when there wouldn't even be a verb in the sentence? But your first interpretation ("the franchise is going into dark territory") does not incude a phrasal verb ("going into" in this case is not phrasal).  In the second interpretation, I'm not sure if you mean "journey" to be a noun or a verb, but in any case, "journey into" is also not phrasal.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if a phrasal verb is defined as: "a phrase that consists of a verb plus an adverbial or prepositional particle, especially one the meaning of which cannot be deduced from the constituents", then I still don't see how Into wouldn't be part of that because the meaning can't be deduced from the constituents. Star Trek Darkness makes no sense. I seriously think some expert help is needed here. Nsign (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Either that or we're gonna be debating this forever (or at least until Friday lol). But yeah, I think we need an expert, or specific clarification from paramount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douts (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess a simple rule of thumb is that if it is literal, then it isn't phrasal, and if it is idiomatic (i.e. "the meaning of which cannot be deduced from the constituents" as you cite in your definition above), then it is phrasal. "Trek into" means literally "trek into", and thus isn't phrasal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you're wrong (I really don't know about this) but what are you basing that on? Nsign (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's obviously a little more complicated than that, but that's it in a simple form. It's all there at phrasal verb as it happens, which defines a phrasal verb in more depth, also phrasal verb.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look and see if I can get my head round it. Nsign (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's obvious the title can be interpreted many different ways. It definitely could be a phrasal verb or it could just be a preposition. And that's not even taking into account the subtitle argument which I think is just as valid. Without proper context or official word from the filmmakers we have no real way of knowing and rely on original research. Therefore, if nothing else, I think we should just play it safe and go with the studio's stylization of the title, Star Trek Into Darkness, which can fit MOS:CT if looked at as a phrasal verb. --DocNox (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are taking "trek" to be a verb, "trek into" is not a phrasal verb. The verb part of that is just "trek" - "into" is simply the direction in which the trek is heading!  There's no interpretation as far as this element is concerned, as there is no other possible meaning.  "Trek into" does not mean anything phrasally, other than the sum of its constituent parts.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Villian
I looked at references on the page, and it clearly says John Harrison, but some have pointed out they reference a caption which they didn't include. The plot section makes it sound like Gary Mitchell, but the trailer on makes it seem like Khan (He says that he has returned, and that he wants his revenge. In this timeline Khan would still be on the Botony Bay.) The real question is what do we use in the article. - Dracuns (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Beyond the StarTrek.com reference, there is nothing official yet. We cannot say he is Mitchell or Khan because it would be OR. It's the decision as to the validity of the StarTrek.com article as a reliable source that needs to be made. Agreed, it is the CBS official site, but the film is licensed from them by Paramount, who have said nothing of the sort, so we must be careful. drewmunn (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Which is why I for one am reluctant to even include that he is supposedly Gary Mitchell. As the IP editor pointed out, Paramount said that it was, but where is the Paramount source to confirm this? Just because a load of sites say its true, doesnt make it unless the original person says it too. It's all just rumours at the moment. MisterShiney    ✉    14:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Another interesting bit is the name John Harrison, which is either a stand in name or will actuall be his name. This could mean that he is an orginal charcter, and neither Khan or Mitchell. If we include the reference to Mitchell should we also add one for Khan? - Dracuns (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It could very well be an "Anonymity pseudonym", something directors use to hide the character name of actors in films/tv series. I honestly do not think its Khan but it very will might be Gary Mitchell (a scar shown in a previous released pic from the set on Benedict's face is similar to a scar which the character of Gary Mitchell has in the old tv series). It might be a good idea to add " (unconfirmed) " next to the character name of John Harrison cause as of now, its still not confirmed and that tagging done to the pic which was "supposedly" released by the production company was very much a "tease"--Stemoc (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is really not our place to speculate as to the authenticity of the report. If it were on a blog, sure, but when the official Star Trek site lists it we are (by our guidelines) supposed to respect that until other (official) reports contradicts it. --Ckatz chat spy  08:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it isn't our place to speculate, but the reason that I stated this discussion was in an effort to prevent the constant edit wars of this issue. Almost everyday John Harrison is removed, and replaced with unknown villian, Khan or Mitchell. - Dracuns (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To help curb that issue, I've just added a hidden note to that part of the article. I'm of the opinion that he should be listed as unnamed, but that's just me. If we're trusting StarTrek.com, then it's John Harrison. However, I'm a little dubious of that release, as it doesn't cite Paramount in any way, despite claiming them to be the source. That's probably just my overly-suspicious take on rumors, however. drewmunn (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding possible addition to Article
I'm not sure if this is an appropriate thing to ask but I recently came across an article online stating that Director J.J. Abrams was contacted by family and friends of a man dying of cancer who wished to see Star Trek Into Darkness in which Mr. Abrams granted it. I am just curious if this bit of information would be relevant enough for inclusion in this wiki page considering another individual by the name of Randy Pausch who was also diagnosed with cancer received a small role in the previous movie which was mentioned in its own page. Once again, I would just like to know what the community here thinks about this and whether or not it should be included. Thank You - RVDDP2501 (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * TrekMovie covered this story here and here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Digital Spy
I can't believe this is an issue, but an editor has restored the promotional phrase "In an interview with Digital Spy" in the Chris Pine section of the Cast list, even though the footnote clearly cites Digital Spy. This is redundant. It's repetitive. It's promotional. And it's completely inconsistent with the rest of the footnotes. We don't say throughout the article, "According to The New York Times" or "in an interview with Empire" etc. etc. All these sources are mentioned in the footnotes. There is nothing special about Digital Spy that serves as any rationale for giving it special treatment. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, was just about to post on your talk page. Just wanted to clarify that it is not POV to be following standard English which dictates that sentences should flow and make sense. Also it is hardly promotional when we are mentioning the interview in the first place. If it is being promotional, then we should remove any reference to the interview. As for it being repetitive, that is the whole point of bibliographies/sources/footnotes at the end. They shouldn't record information that is not already in the main article. Anyway's have said my piece, don't want to get into an edit war/discussion/create heat on an article that is pretty hot at the moment anyway. MisterShiney    ✉    20:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tenebrae's assessment here. We tend to attribute more directly (as we attribute Pine's statement here). There are probably exceptions when attribution in two levels is warranted (maybe such as a making-of book controversially claiming that the director said this and that). That's not the case here, so we can relegate the source to the footer. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Important note
Please ensure you read all current discussions on this page before adding a new section. The previous contributors to this discussion have reached a compromise for the time being, and several wish to leave the conversation be for now. A summary of our arguments for and against capitalisation can be found here. Thank you for your cooperation. drewmunn (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Good grief -- read all sections?? Couldn't you be more specific and just state that it's the title that's the subject of mass edit warring? Read all sections, ohfergoodnesssakes -- I'll go read the Bible first, it's shorter. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your... valued contribution? The reason this notice is here is because people are going over ground we have covered in detail before. If you want to make a point, it's your responsibility to ensure it's not been made before. drewmunn talk 18:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, collapsible sections would be nice, per this QUINTIX (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I propose moving the title capitalization discussion to a separate talk subpage. Otherwise, if anyone had anything to say about the article contents, it would get completely lost in the noise in this page... 200.127.94.49 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More for respect of due process than anything else, I oppose that move. It'd make the main point for discussion gather dust in the corner, when it's/has been the topic for fierce debate. drewmunn talk 13:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Jsharpminor re "I'll go read the Bible first, it's shorter.": Amen! There've been over a thousand edits to this page in the past 4 days! (Half of them were by the obsessed single-purpose account User:Xkcdreader.) My experience watching [[Talk:Pink slime]] leads me to expect that until the hype and fervour dies down a few months from now, there will be no consensus about anything to do with the title. -sche (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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: page not moved: no consensus after 29 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek into Darkness → Star Trek Into Darkness – Please see the discussion that has already taken place. I'm requesting the move now, as it's been decided by some that this process should be started. Please add your opinions below so we can gauge people's opinions, and hopefully quantify the results. To support this change, I put forward the official site, where the title is listed as "Star Trek Into Darkness" inside the HTML title element, and the official Paramount YouTube teaser, titled in the same format, as citations. drewmunn (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A clear cut case as far as MOS:CT goes which states that we shouldn't capitalise prepositions "containing four letters or fewer".  At the moment, any suggestion that there is intent by the film-makers that this is supposed to be a two-part title or a title and a subtitle is pure assumption on the part of the respective editors.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Paramount is the official source. What they call their film should be reflected here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: We need to use caution when referencing promotional materials for determining the article title. Such materials tend to render titles more fully in titlecase. Studios are not trying to follow a manual of style that academic resources like Wikipedia do. At the same time, I do notice that the materials seem to highlight "Into Darkness" as a subtitle (particularly noticeable in the recent teaser). It could be that the filmmakers are trying to accomplish both: "Star trek into darkness" and "Star Trek: Into Darkness". The problem is that this is all speculative; I do not believe we've had an clear-cut explanation that it is trying to be two things or not. Even if this were the case, does that necessarily mean making an exception to the manual of style? As it reads on the face of it, it should be "into". It requires explanation why we would have it in titlecase, and we don't have that beyond our own assumptions. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If we went by "official" promotional material only, we'd have articles titled Se7en, L4yer CakƐ or Thir13en Ghosts; thankfully we have enough sense to see that an internal manual of style exists, is clear-cut and reasonable, and trumps external stylistic choices. GRAPPLE   X  16:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a poster child (pardon the pun) of MOS:CT. Plus what Grapple X said.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 11, 2012; 16:41 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:NCCAPS. We take titles from reliable sources, but we don't take stylisations. If further evidence comes to light down the line that "Into Darkness" is conclusively a subtitle and the title is not meant to be a sentence clause then I would support an exemption, but at this point editors are just guessing. It's better to go by the MOS until we know for sure. There are other things we can look at (besides promotional material) once the film is released, like the Copyright catalog and the BBFC to see how it was registered. Betty Logan (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The BBFC currently lists the film as titled "STAR TREK - INTO DARKNESS", which muddies the water somewhat. I think we should find a different source... *backs away slowly* drewmunn (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * New comment I've not seen anything to suggest that it isn't a subtitle. Not in the history of Star Trek has the name "Star Trek" been used where "Trek" is a verb in a longer title.  It's always been part of the name of the franchise.  There's even trademark reasons for this.  What I don't get is where Wikipedia thinks that an argument based solely on WP, where external references are available, somehow trumps those other sources.  We are essentially using WP as our OR! Into Darkness is the subtitle.  This isn't OR.  This isn't opinion.  This is sourced fact; with no counter-sources suggesting otherwise.  In my opinion, we are using Wikipedia policy to impose an opinion that just isn't in the spirit of WP, just so we can have what?  ...consistency?  ...consistency with what?  All other subtitles are handled as separate from the title in wiki articles.  A missing colon means we break that convention?  I'm an immediatist, which means I feel this should be made right based on the information we have now.  The information we have now says this is a subtitle.  Is there a chance this is one long title?  Sure, but there's nothing supporting that view right now, and it is looking like a slimmer chance that view is correct with each passing day.  However, if evidence shows otherwise at one point, I will be first in line to approve a page move to the confirmed name at that time.  But that future time isn't now.  Now is now, and now there just isn't a significant number of sources that provide strong support that this is one long title. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  19:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose – our guidelines on styling composition titles and trademarks are clear and consistent, and not wp-unique, i.e. correspond to what some other sources do (like trektoday.com and digitalspy.com). Dicklyon (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As many have stated, Wikipedia is one of very few sources that uses a lowercase 'i' in the title. Paramount has written the title differently.  This is not like Se7en or Thir13en Ghosts or whatever, it is not only sometimes written differently on some posters.  Unless it is in all capital letters, with the exception of one press release I read some time ago and the two sources cited above, it is always Star Trek Into Darkness except here.  I don't understand why everyone is hung up on the guidelines for titles set forth by Wikipedia.  I don't think it matters whether or not there is punctuation implied or that the "Into Darkness" portion of the title is a subtitle or the continuation of a sentence.  If the studio has released the title as "Star Trek Into Darkness" than it should be written as such.  While printed journalism has fallen far from what it used to be as far as quality, there is still the Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual that is commonly considered to represent the correct way to write journalistic pieces.  The manual is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines in that it states that prepositions in titles should not be capitalized.  The vast majority of journalists and editors who have written and edited articles about this film have chosen to ignore that rule in this case.  While many of them may just be careless, it is not outside of the realm of possibility that many journalists are aware of the rule and chose to ignore it in this case because it should not apply here.  —Kilcoyne (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Official sources use uppercase "i". It's not a stylize choice.  The stylized choice is the all caps version with the unpronounced dash.  Which leads into the next point.
 * Into Darkness is a subtitle, not a continuation of the words "Star Trek". This, by itself, trumps everything else, as it follows in line with WP to place an uppercase "i".  This isn't "Gone with the Wind" or "Dawn of the Dead". If it were, the capiization wouldn't be an issue, in my mind.  This is a distinct title and a distinct subtitle.  Additionally, JJ Abrams is quoted above in Talk stating that this movie's subtitle will not include a colon.  Unless the whole name is one subtitle (with no title in and of itself), that wholly makes no sense on our part to read it as a sentence!  Even in the stylized version of the title, there's a dash to show that one is a subtitle. "STAR TREK - INTO DARKNESS"  This isn't like urban myth of the kid named "Lay-a" pronounced "Lay[dash]a", is it?  Clearly no.  Which leads me into the next point.
 * We are going well into the realm of original research WP:OP to justify a lowercase "i" where WP is treated higher value than the official sources. I understand the good faith of those who oppose, but their argument is based solely on Wiki as the source! This means that the argument will not end if the oppose position wins our quaint little vote. Once the official trademark or some official press release for this film is seen, this move request will be reinitiated (prolly over and over).  For all intents has purposes, the official sources have already stated the correct name in the form of their choosing, and the number of creditable sources is growing by the day. (I wonder if JJ Abrams is reading this article and having a laugh at us.  OK, that's not a point, but still funny.)
 * The title should not have been changed in the first place without a discussion. The person responsible for moving this article did so in good faith, but perhaps did not understand the ramifications of that action without a pre-existing consensus.  I know this is more of a comment than a point, but we really should take great care in big moves like this.  I've seen this in other areas where unsupported actions where made to move articles without even a discussion.  It leads unnecessary and lengthy aftermath discussions where blood pressure runs high, like the one above. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  21:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support For goodness sake! I thought this had already been established with the ABOVE discussion!!
 * 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.  MisterShiney    ✉    21:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It should be noted also that some editors have already given their reasons for and against the Move/Rename in the above discussion and their views should also be taken into consideration with the final outcome as they may not come back online for a little while, what with it being close to the holidays. MisterShiney    ✉    21:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As I stated above, I have always been a strong advocate for following Wikipedia guidelines, but 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 form of the title in all other media, and the editors who are adhering to a strict interpretation of Wikipedia rules and procedures, are overlooking the fact that we "will have occasional exceptions". Hopefully we can build a consensus one way or the other, instead of disregarding opinions just because they don't blindly follow certain guidelines. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Clear case of MOS:CT. There's no need to treat this article differently from other similar articles. All arguments for "common sense" or "meant to be" involve POV and interpretaiton. DonQuixote (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment How is it interpretation/POV when it is how the title has been officially released? It is interpretation/POV to change it to what we feel it should be when it is different to how it is released. MisterShiney    ✉    22:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The official title actually has no bearing on the matter. If the majority of sources simply called it Star Trek 12—as opposed to the official title—that's what we'd go with as per WP:COMMONNAME. And the styling is something else again. The only relevant issue as far as I can see is whether Into Darkness is a subtitle, and only a subtitle, which may warrant an exemption from the MOS. Betty Logan (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well according to our own article Abrams has said it is a subtitle. (See title section) MisterShiney    ✉    23:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well he hasn't actually, has he? If you are referring to the 2009 Spanish interview, well that was three years ago and they were discussing whether it would have a number or not. As far as I am aware, neither the producers or Paramount have confirmed whether Into Darkness is a subtitle, but if there is official confirmation that it is then obviously moving the article would be a no brainer. Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of when he said it or what they were discussing, we have a source where he said it. The trailer clearly displays it first with Star Trek displayed seconds after, implying that it can be used as stand alone title and it's not just a style choice. MisterShiney    ✉    13:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote is from three years ago before even the script for the new film was written, so the conversation clearly doesn't relate to the title as it stands now, so taking it out of context is WP:SYNTHESIS. Like I said, I would have no problem in making an exception for this particular case if the argument were based on something solid rather than just what editors think. If Paramount were to announce that it is indeed a subtitle, or indeed use the subtitle on its own to refer to the film then that would be sufficient, but there isn't any evidence of that as yet. Betty Logan (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Invoking "common sense" as an argument is just arguing with a specific POV. Stating that something is "meant to be" without verification is interpretation. DonQuixote (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As per Wikipedia: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". If you don't like it take it up with Wikipedia. Nsign (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's irony for you...And "common sense" can also mean that this article shouldn't be treated differently from other similar articles. POV. If you don't like the WP:MOS, then take it up with Wikipedia. DonQuixote (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been given plenty of explanations by several editors WHY it should be treated differently and obdurately ignored them in favour of saying either "there's this guideline" or repeatedly asking "but please explain why.." I and others are in fact abiding by the guidelines in the WP:MOS which state exceptions can be made using reason and consensus. That's what's happening here. Nsign (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that consensus is very clearly split, it would suggest that it wouldn't simply be a matter of "common sense" to make an exception to the guideline in this instance. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite so, and no one ever said that "common sense" alone was enough. Logic, reason, available evidence and precedent are all being used to make the case and gain consensus. Nsign (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Mr Shiny's argument is pretty much along those lines, without much more substance, which is where DonQuixote's comments seem to be aimed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He's not the only one arguing. And his argument is anyway quite valid within the guideline framework. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As with most Rules and regulations, there are going to be exceptions. Which is why they have line in them that we should use our own common sense. If it was one editor saying it, would be all for keeping it, but it isn't. It would also be common sense that we go with what the official site/releases say. MisterShiney    ✉    13:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, "using common sense" by itself doesn't mean much. It can be "common sense" to go with what the official site says. However, it can also be "common sense" that they have their own MOS and we have our own MOS. Common sense doesn't actually support either version. Saying that it does is POV. Also, saying "there are going to be exceptions" doesn't mean that this has to be one of them. The rules being flexible just means that the rules are flexible. It doesn't support one version or the other either. Logic, reason, available evidence and precedent says that "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS", "Star Trek Into Darkness" and "Star Trek into Darkness" are all equivalent and it's just a stylistic choice that WP:MOS chooses the last one. DonQuixote (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not equivalent. One of the three doesn't allow for the reading of "into darkness" as a subtitle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Er...none of the three allows for the reading of a subtitle. Taken by themselves, how can you be sure which words are in the title and which words are in the subtitle? Star: Trek into Darkness? Your reading of "Into Darkness" as a subtitle is your interpretation. DonQuixote (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So if its just a stylistic choice let's make it one people are happy with and work within the flexibility the guidelines allow to do that. Rather than one that very contentiously and arguably turns a 40 year precedent for headings and subtitles into a sentence. Nsign (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Making people happy isn't the function of Wikipedia. And, as it has been pointed out above, there is no 40 year precedent because all the previous titles had colons (to separate title from subtitle when written on a single line) and by design this one doesn't. DonQuixote (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't its function to be inaccurate. And lack of a colon does not mean there's no subtitle when it comes to titles, as Abrams own statement on the matter would indicate and as has been pointed out numerous times. The precedent is that Star Trek is always a heading, never a sentence. The colon is a minor detail, not the deciding factor. Nsign (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's your opinion that it's inaccurate. That's POV. Please provide a reliable source that says that it's inaccurate. (And see below for your supposed "precedent"). DonQuixote (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And its your opinion that it's accurate. That's POV. Please see elsewhere on this page for multiple examples from multiple editors why its inaccurate. Nsign (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * trektoday.com and digitalspy.com says that it's accurate enough. Again, independent publications have used STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek into Darkness. Some choose the first, some choose the second and some choose the third. Wikipedia is one of those that chooses the third. DonQuixote (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny how before you were reluctant to use other sources than the MOS. And Wikipedia has not chosen to use the third. Some editors including you have contentiously chosen to use the third according to a guideline that allows for exactly this kind of exception, and the arguments for the exception are elsewhere on this page from multiple users.Nsign (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Er...no, I wasn't reluctant to use other sources. The point was that what other sources did didn't matter because of the very reason that they used STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek into Darkness. And Wikipedia's MOS chooses the third one; none of us has "contentiously" chosen it. However, some are arguing to change it. That's fine if you can find a verifiable justification to make this an exception to the MOS. Nothing that's verifiable has been provided. DonQuixote (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * all the previous titles had colons Actually that is incorrect. As per StarTrek.com, the TNG did not have colons. It was a Wikipedia decision to insert them. There is precedent to insert colons. MisterShiney    ✉    17:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting...That opens up another discussion. Checking imdb and rotten tomatoes (sorry, quick search here), imdb lists all of them with colons while rotten tomatoes list all but one with a dash. That makes Star Trek Generations the odd-man out. Thanks for pointing that out. Needs some better research into the matter though. DonQuixote (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support As stated above by another user, multiple sources have now been cited in support of the capitalized "I" and editors sticking stubbornly to a "guideline" that is open to consensus are wilfully ignoring that fact and dismissing without rebuttal the arguments of others, preferring instead to repeat ad-infinitum "..but there's this guideline.." The evidence has been clearly presented and argued for by several users including myself. 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. 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. The creator of the work is also on record as saying he intended to use a subtitle. If we're going to "assume", let's assume based on evidence, not a guideline that is already flexible and open to interpretation and consensus. The guideline allows for exceptions and the reasons for why this should be one have been clearly and repeatedly stated elsewhere on this page. The weight of available, viewable evidence, coupled with the creators’ statemmaent on the tter and the precedent set in 40 years worth of Star Trek history, strongly suggest Into Darkness is a subtitle with capitals. 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. Nsign (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I would have thought this would be pretty cut and paste. Although there is policy for the lower case, there is also policy for the capitalisation and it is supported by the "use common sense" part of all Wikipedia policies saying that, in some cases there would be exceptions. It cant be called a "style choice" like Se7en, L4yer CakƐ or Thir13en Ghosts because they have replaced Characters rather than grammar to be different and stand out from other Movies with something different. The trailer clearly shows "Into Darkness" before Star Trek, thus making it "Into Darkness" as the secondary title to the movie. Your own article says that Abrams said that this film will have a subtitle. 86.184.69.22 (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Manual of Style guidelines. Why should this title be given special treatment? The title is clearly meant to be read as a sentence and there is no "stealth colon" or anything like that. The producers of the movie pointedly excluded the colon, thus eschewing the subtitle approach. Furthermore, "into darkness" has been used in a sentence in the official synopsis - "...an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek into darkness." The guidelines are clear and I see no compelling reason why they should be overridden to make a few fans happy. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Opinion. You don't actually know its a sentence, you're assuming. They may have excluded the colon but JJ Abrams is quoted as saying the film would be subtitled. I don't think you've read through the sections above clearly - this ground has been extensively covered. Nsign (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Despite when he said that. . MisterShiney    ✉    13:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC) (Not even I know what I meant there)  MisterShiney    ✉    15:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of you say that there is a subtitle. So why should it not be Star Trek: Into Darkness? After all, the BBC is including a dash of its own accord. "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a stylistic choice that is more subtle than the other examples mentioned here, and the manual of style overrides that. At face value, it is not treated like a subtitle. Scjessey makes an excellent point in highlighting the relevant passage in the synopsis. "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a style incompatible with the manual that Wikipedia uses; to change to that based on this unusual amalgamation is to put it in limbo. It really should be either "Star Trek into Darkness" or "Star Trek: Into Darkness". Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Inserted comment: Erik, your statement "It really should be either "Star Trek into Darkness" or "Star Trek: Into Darkness". " Since when is this our call to make about how movies should be named?  It is Wikipedia's job to just state the facts.  If a producer choses to have a title and a subtitle not separated by a colon, that's their call, not ours. Sorry for continuing this conversation, esp after my comment below, but your comment struck me as the whole problem with the oppose stand. We are using Wiki itself to determine what is right and wrong with world, and that's not what Wiki is for. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  20:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont know. Let my check with my psychic connection to Abrams! Erik, I respect you as an editor, but please dont ask silly questions. If you are referring to BBC America there isnt a - as you say. What I do know is that people's strict adherence to GUIDElines (emphasis on guide) makes us look like idiots and just puts fuel in the fire of the argument that "Wikpedia isn't reliable because it's edited by the public" because every other newspaper, blog, fan site, official site, production notes, released materials, posters and trailers all have a capital I, despite their having their own MOS. To make the change, doesnt put it in Limbo. Just creates a precedent if something like this was to happen. If it's in conflict then as per my reasons above, we need to use our common sense, and common sense in this case, dictates that we create a more factual article and display it how it has been released!  MisterShiney    ✉    15:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The creators have specifically stated they wouldn't use a colon and that there would be a subtitle and the weight of evidence suggests that a subtitle is what it is. Having said that, if someone put a colon in I wouldn't be sufficiently bothered to argue against it as it would reflect what I think the evidence suggests - a subtitle. And has been endlessly pointed out, the manual is flexible and open to consensus where necessary. Nsign (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The creators specifically stated they wouldn't use a colon, but they said nothing about subtitles. The "evidence" you claim is manufactured - original research by the support crowd. Since there is no concrete evidence that "into Darkness" is a subtitle, it must be read as a sentence. The current title is correct. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, as has been already stated, JJ Abrams is on record is saying that the sequel would have a subtitle: http://trekmovie.com/2009/06/04/report-from-mexico-city-star-trek-press-conference-w-pictures-video/. And the additional evidence is not "manufactured" but taken from official sources and precedents set across the 40 year history of the franchise. Again - this ground has been extensively covered above. Nsign (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And, as has been already stated, that article is from 2009 and combining it with the current title four years later is wp:synthesis. And there is no 40 year precedent as all previous titles had colons (to differentiate title from subtitle when written on a single line) while the current one doesn't have one by design. DonQuixote (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And wp:synthesis does not apply because it states that sources can't be used to reach a conclusion "not explicitly stated by any of the sources". In this case the conclusion - that there is a subtitle - is explicitly stated as the intention of the creator. And the precedent here is that Star Trek is always a heading, never part of a sentence. The colon is a minor detail, not the deciding factor. Nsign (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, taking his statement out of context leads to synthesis. Nowhere does he say "...and that subtitle will be Into Darkness". As for always being a heading and never part of a sentence...who says that every title should follow that format?...who says that all future movies should be titled that way? The colon is a helpful bit of punctuation that helps the reader determine the title from the subtitle. Since there's nothing that specifically says what is a title and what is a subtitle, interpreting a specific portion of the given title as a subtitle is interpretation. DonQuixote (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement is in context - he is stating that the sequel to Star Trek will have a subtitle. This is an article about the sequel to Star Trek and this dispute is about whether it has a subtitle. The wording of the subtitle is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether there is a subtitle or not and for this we examine the available evidence, precedent and the creators statement of intent on the matter. Assuming it is a sentence is also interpretation. As stated repeatedly now. Nsign (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not in context. You're putting together what was said four years ago with the current title that has been released. That's synthesis. The current title may not have anything to do with what was said in an interview four years ago. DonQuixote (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is entirely in context: its a statement of intent from the creator about the use of a subtitle in the Star Trek sequel. This is a debate about the use of a subtitle in the Star Trek sequel. Not, I add, the wording of the subtitle, just its existence. Nsign (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See below. DonQuixote (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, are you serious? The franchise is Star Trek; it is and has always been Star Trek. There's no world where anything but "Star Trek" could be the main title, so if he's on record as stating they will use a subtitle for the sequel to Star Trek, as opposed to Star Trek 12, quite clearly that means Into Darkness is the subtitle on the new Star Trek movie. Or would you really have us believe it could somehow be Star: Trek into Darkness? Because that's just absurd. Magus (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I ask editor on both sides of this issue to refrain from extensive conversation in this voting area. In the end, the vote itself will be counted regardless to the additional arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcsuper (talk • contribs)
 * Please read WP:NOTAVOTE. Consensus is built through discussion.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. As far as this case goes, right now the vote is close to 50/50, so there is no consensus anyway. Which brings me to another point, the article shouldn't been moved in the first place since there are clear policy arguments on both side of this issue. A neutral arbiter won't be able to make consensus decision either way, at this point, unless there are more than a few new supports more than oppose in the next week. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look at the move log the article has never sat at the capitalised version of the title. It was moved here by consensus from Untitled Star Trek sequel as the result of a move discussion that specifically made reference to the capitalisation issue.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose; we have our own style guide, which we follow for matters of punctuation and capitalization. The "official" orthography of the title, even if one could be determined, is entirely irrelevant.  Powers T 16:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't know if it's been mentioned in this lengthy discussion, but onscreen title graphics virtually never use a colon although subtitles are generally rendered with a colon in text. It's similar with the TV show Married... with Children in which no ellipses appear on screen. It may be that Abrams and the studio are making claims that stir up interest for marketing reasons, but that doesn't mean they can change the English language or stylistic conventions operating under a larger linguistic framework that shilling for a movie. Based on countless past examples, and the fact even the studio concedes the latter two words are the subtitle, style would normally dictate ''Star Trek: Into Darkness."


 * That said, I see The New York Times in an article (as opposed to the licensed All Media Guide /Rovi content it syndicates and which originates outside the Times) spells it Star Trek Into Darkness at "Dueling Biopics in the Works for Beatles’ Manager" by Allan Kozinn (who generally writes about music, mot movies). The Los Angeles Times also renders it Star Trek Into Darkness at "'Star Trek Into Darkness’ poster has a ‘Dark Knight Rises’ vibe" by Patrick Kevin Day.


 * I have to say I find that perplexing, since capping the I treats the title neither has having a subtitle nor being what's called a dependent phrase, in which "into" would be lowercase. Star Trek Into Darkness with cap I is neither fish nor fowl &mdash; yet two respected newspapers use it. I can see why we're having this discussion, and wish I knew the best way to proceed. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT: As per MOS:CT which clearly states: 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. Additionally, every single official source related to the film that I've seen uses Into and as WP:MOS is a guideline not a rule, we should be following their example with this, for example: . Also, considering that the official poster has STAR TREK and INTO DARKNESS on different lines and in different type fonts and size suggest it is meant to be used as a subtitle. note The lack of a colon may simply be so as not to confuse this film with the films from the next generation series. douts (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you're coming from here. You cite MOS:CT which says that "into" (as a preposition of four letters) should not be capitalised, yet you support the move.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It also states 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 - combine this with the fact that there are ZERO official sources using a lower case i it's pretty obvious it should be an upper case I. Also as Betty Logan said earlier If the majority of sources simply called it Star Trek 12—as opposed to the official title—that's what we'd go with as per WP:COMMONNAME. By this logic there is simply no argument - the vast majority (if not all) sources use an uppercase I, that is what we should use per WP:COMMONNAME. douts (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're cherry-picking your source there. You're missing the bit where it says "every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words" and it then goes on to define "prepositions containing four letters or fewer" amongst the unimportant words.  WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here as we all agree on the title, it's how we style that title that we have an issue with.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But surely it would be considered OR to determine the value of "less important words" If official sources have determined that the said words are important enough to have a capitalisation, then who are we to argue? MisterShiney    ✉    17:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rob, the capitalisation of the "i" is crucial to the meaning of the title in the sense that NEVER has the word trek been used as a verb in a Star Trek title and as such not capitalising it results in the title not making any sense whatsoever. It's like saying 'Jack into chair'. Unless the I is capitalised it simply doesn't make sense. douts (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I cannot believe that conversation is still going!! Regardless of MOS, Wikipedia should aim to be as close to the officially released material. I wish users would stop being so stubborn and be prepared to bend the "rules" in this case because Wikipedia is not Law, despite what some editors would like to think. These conversations seem to be going around in circles with some editors determined to force their views on others! This has just turned into a shouting match! 31.54.1.37 (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ... says the person who uses four exclamation points. Powers T 18:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a place for personal attacks, Powers.  Z 18:52, 13 December 2012
 * What has the number of explanation points got to do with anything? It was not meant as a personal attack. I think you should read the policy regarding this so as to better understand what they are. It was just an observation. I rarely get involved in wiki articles, but the way this conversation just goes round in circles is reficulius. The same editors are making the same points over and over again and it's coming across as a shouting match. 31.54.1.37 (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This request to move is designed to help end any circular conversation. The voting system in this section is designed to allow us to reach consensus, and you have submitted your support. When we close this discussion, the votes will be counted, and action will be taken depending on the majority. At the time of writing, the majority support the move. However, should this change, then we'll stick with a lowercase 'i'. We could reopen this discussion later, such as after the release of the film, or if more solid evidence appears, but until then, the outcome of this discussion will determine the article's future. drewmunn (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTAVOTE. Consensus is built through discussion.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is this aimed at? drewmunn (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, you. You're talking about "votes" and "majority".  It isn't a case of a vote and whoever gets the majority "wins".  Consensus is based on the validity of the arguments.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, we're back where we started and arbitration will be needed as, on that basis, consensus won't be reached. Nsign (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it's not as black and white as a count of the hands vote, but this section is designed to bring people's opinions together into something we can take action. Everybody has an opinion, and here they can be registered as their 'vote' (what they feel should be the outcome, rather than just their opinion filtering through a long discussion). This is designed to result in an action, rather than a circular discussion. drewmunn (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like wishful thinking to me. If "consensus" is based on validity of arguments, and not on, er, actual consensus, we're back in the circle. Nsign (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not wishful thinking: "[M]ost decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion."  And we wouldn't need arbitration.  In the event of "no consensus to move", the article would stay where it was.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I suppose now you'll tell me that this is just a guideline and we can ignore it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the crap attempt at sarcasm, exactly how then is consensus reached? When everyone agrees? When more than half agree? I've never been in this process before and I had assumed that consensus was essentially a majority vote. So if it isn't, what is it? Is there a fixed rule or, indeed, our old favourite, a guideline? And why should the article stay where it is when there is no consensus either way? Nsign (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the case of this article, there are multiple conflicting views, so an external moderator will no doubt make the final decision. They will be required to have no opinion prior to joining the topic, and will read every view written. They will then give weight to people's opinions depending on the validity of their arguments according to existing convention. Basically, we argue for a bit, then someone steps in and tells us who wins. The onus is on each group of people (pro-move and anti-move) to provide the best possible reason for their views to be supported. Consensus is much like time, wibbly-wobbly. Officially, it should be 100% of the people agree, but in situations like this, it's more a case of someone in power deciding if the other side's arguments are valid. For this request to be granted, we have to hope that any moderator agrees with the evidence put forward by the pro-movers; the overwhelming official sources that use capitalisation, past Star Trek movies, and other citations. If they are considered weighty enough to over-rule the anti-movers argument, which is basically centred on MOS, then the move will occur. Otherwise, the article will stay here, and we're back to circular discussion! drewmunn (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds fair enough. Nsign (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS may help - there would have to be clear consensus in favour of the pro-movers in order for this page to be moved. In the event of "no consensus to move" the page would stay where it is, especially seeing as it is titled in line with the style guidelines.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see a definition for "clear consensus" in there. Is it majority view or not? Nsign (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's based on the validity of the arguments, the weight of existing guidelines, and isn't really concerned with raw numbers of !votes. One person citing a valid guideline will outweight ten people arguing against but with no convincing case; which is why an uninvolved party will usually be needed to evaluate the sides being presented. GRAPPLE   X  15:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK thanks - I'd be happy with that solution. Nsign (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. First of all, from a grammatical standpoint, "Star Trek into Darkness" is not by any means a complete sentence, so the suggestion that the title is "clearly meant to be read as a sentence" is absurd. Secondly, promotional materials for the film make it very clear that "Star Trek" (in smaller typecase) and "Into Darkness" (in larger typecase) are two completely separate phrases within the title (they even appear seperately on the title card in the trailers). Thirdly, press material from the studio, including the film's official website, list the film as either "Star Trek Into Darkness" or have the title stylized in all caps (nowhere is "Into" ever spelled with a lowercase "i"). Finally, I have not been able to locate one instance where the title has been stated (by Abrams, producers, cast, or anyone else involved) as "Star Trek into Darkness;" rather, it is always referred to as "Star Trek (beat) Into Darkness" or just "Into Darkness."  Z 18:52, 13 December 2012
 * Comment: Today, Paramount began using hashtags on Twitter. They have #StarTrek and #IntoDarkness as two separate hahstags whenever they are used by Paramount's official account. See this tweet for an example. Is this enough proof that Paramount treat them as two separate entities? drewmunn (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply, no. Hashtags are just marketing devices.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When does something move on from being a marketing device to being something you'd class as acceptable proof? drewmunn (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When the title has anything other wording or punctuation than "Star Trek Into Darkness". No-one denies that this is the title, but we have our own house style for capitalisation that seemingly isn't the same as the film producers'.  However, we should use our style.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Some more official sources that use "Into" rather than "into": Paramount UK press release, Official Star Trek UK Paramount Facebook page, Official Twitter profile, and Official Pinterest creator thingy. There are more regional variants of the Facebook page, but I won't list them all. drewmunn (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Official sources are irrelevant in this case. This is a style issue.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's useless us blindly applying our style choices without looking at the official sources; if our MOS stipulated that the word Star Trek must always be followed by a colon in film names (something not too outlandish prior to the reboot), would we still do it for Into Darkness? I doubt it, because there isn't one in any official source. If we relied only on the MOS, and never looked at the source, then we wouldn't be particularly good at evolving to suit new needs. drewmunn (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The addition of colons in that manner would not be a style choice, as it would change the syntax. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So does not capitalising the "i". Without a capital, it can only be read as a sentence, not as the two separate phrases hinted at by capitalisation. By choosing to style it "i", you are forcing readers into making it one sentence, something that not only looks odd, but doesn't seem to fit the evidence given by official sources. drewmunn (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation and WP:OR. Who knows what is "hinted at"?  That's the kind of thing we would need the sources for before considering deviation from our own MOS.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying anyone's hinting at anything, I'm saying we can hint at something ourselves. By capitalising, we're saying that it could be two phrases, or it could be a single sentence. As for sources, what would you consider conclusive enough? I've listed plenty above, as have others, that corroborate our POV that capitalisation is official. drewmunn (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean we need sources that discuss what is hinted at by, the intention of, and the meaning behind the capitalisation before we should consider deviating from our own style guide. That it's capitalised in press releases isn't in dispute.  Like I said, it's a style issue.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A source such as the creator of the work saying he intends to use a subtitle, for example? Again - the weight of available, viewable evidence coupled with the creators statement of intent and the precedent set across a 40-year franchise history which has never used the word Trek as a verb strongly indicate a subtitle. The "style" is flexible and should reflect the spirit of Wikipedia in favour of accuracy §rather than contentious and conspiciously strange stylistic preference. Nsign (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All that is synthesis. You're combining things that have happened in the past with what's happening now. This may or may not be the case. Please provide a reliable source that verifies your interpretation and original research. DonQuixote (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No it doesnt. Doesnt matter when Abrams said it. Point is he said it! It is not original research. As said on the "In a Nutshell" part of original research says that "ALL material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves." It is published in multiple sources that "Star Trek Into Darkness" has a capitalised the I. I put it to the opposition that it is in fact Original Research on the part of Wikipedia editors to put a lower case/correct grammar/enforce their views. Now prove your not. Point is, we dont know what the producers were thinking when they decided on the title and we can go around in circles as long as we want. But we are going around in circles. Therefore, so we are not providing our own Original Research/Synthesis, we should fall back on what the official sources say. Because by enforcing a lower case, that is what we are doing. MisterShiney    ✉    17:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're conflating two arguments. Saying that Abram's quote is about STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, when that title isn't even mentioned, is synthesis. It has nothing to do with the other argument which is that STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Trek into Darkness are styles that have been used by different independent publications. That has nothing to do with synthesis. Saying that the second version is the one-and-only correct style is POV without a source that verifies it (which also makes it original research). Please provide a source, as has been asked before, that verifies that "Into Darkness" is a subtitle or that verifies that the title is unique and exempt from WP:MOS guidelines. DonQuixote (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're confused. The wording of the subtitle is irrelevant. The fact that the creator is on record as saying a subtitle would be used for this film is the key fact. What that subtitle would be worded as is not being debated by anyone. The existence of a subtitle is. Please see elsewhere on this page for multiple arguments from multiple users why Into Darkness should be considered a subtitle. Nsign (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording is important because it hasn't been established that it is a subtitle. Someone other than wikipedia editors have to say such-and-such (eg "Into Darkness") is a subtitle. Wikipedia editors stating it without a reliable source is interpretation and original research. Combining a statement about an intention to use a subtitle with the current title is synthesis. He has to actually come out and say that "Into Darkness" was what he meant. (Going out on a limb and doing some interpretation, so take this with a grain of salt, it's been stated that one of the working titles was Star Trek: Vengeance, so that's probably what he meant.) DonQuixote (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And it hasn't been established that it isn't a subtitle - stating its a sentence is also original research,POV and interpretation. And our opinion of what constitutes synthesis clearly differs - I say previous statements on the matter are entirely in context and relevant and you don't. So another impasse for an objective party to decide on. Nsign (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're the one claiming that it is a subtitle and that the previous interview has any connection whatsoever with the current title. The burden of proof is on you. The onus is on you to provide a reliable source verifying your claims. Otherwise, it's original research. DonQuixote (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (sigh)And sources have been provided by multiple sources - the officially released material available so far and Abrams own statement regarding his intention to use a subtitle. And interpreting the title as a sentence is also POV, original research and interpretation as you have no reliable source - anywhere - confirming that it is a sentence. Quite the opposite in fact. This is now utterly circular and neither of us will gain anything from repeating ourselves while sinking in a swamp of pedantry and subjective interpretation of Wikipedia policy. It is most likely than an objective outside party will need to rule on this. Nsign (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (sigh)None of those say that "into darkness" is a subtitle. Those are your interpretations, and thus original research. And all you're doing is shifting the burden. You're the one saying that the title should be read as a title and subtitle. Please provide a reliable source that says that it should be. DonQuixote (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He is not the "one". Multiple people have been trying to explain the obviousness of the subtitle status of "Into Darkness", and the undeniability of the possibility of the subtitle status.  You are one of about two attempting to deny the obvious.  Have you looked at the posters?  Have you watched the trailer?  Have you listened to commentators speaking the title?  In all cases, they word be transcribed as title and subtitle (with a colon).  It is straighforward, although there is no proof, as this is neither mathematics nor alcohol.  Original research again?!  The prohibition against building content on original research was created to keep out undereducated physics kooks postulating thier own version of gravity and relativity etc.  WP:NOR is easily misunderstood at the lower levels, that we had to write in WP:CALC, to point out that arithmetic is not original research.  In this case, with the posters, it is no more than "look and see" or "watch and see", "how would that be transcribed"?  That is less WP:SYNTHESIS than arithmetic.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have to say that it's "obvious", then it's original research. Even if it's obvious and true, that doesn't exclude it from having to be verifiable. Looking at posters and trailers is fine, but drawing any conclusions from them is interpretation and original research. From just above the edit box "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." So please find a reliable source that verifies all of the above. DonQuixote (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Drawing the conclusion that its a sentence is interpretation and original research. So please find a reliable source that verifies it is a sentence. Until you can then the debate is at an impasse. Nsign (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Still shifting the burden there. But I'll humour you...various sources have used STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Trek into Darkness. Wikipedia chooses the third one because of its WP:MOS.
 * Now, please provide as source that says that the second one is the one-and-only valid one because it's supposed to be a subtitle. DonQuixote (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please point out to me where I have said that the second one is the one-and-only valid one and I might consider humouring you. I say that the second option is preferable. As there is no 100% reliable source that the title is either a sentence or a heading and a subtitle, neither side of this debate can claim with certainty that they are correct and both rely to some degree on interpretation and POV. In which case Star Trek into Darkness should not be used because it allows for no other interpretation than a sentence - an interpretation for which there exists no verifiable sources or evidence, I should add - and neither for that matter should Star Trek:Into Darkness as it allows for no other interpretation than a heading and a subtitle. However Star Trek Into Darkness allows for the title to be interpreted as either one and is also consistent with all of the officially released material. This seems like a fair compromise which satisfies both sides of the debate and is consistent with both the spirit of Wikipedia and the guidelines set down in the MOS.
 * And "Wikipedia" hasn't chosen. A certain group of users have chosen according to an MOS that allows for exactly this kind of exception based on reason and evidence. Nsign (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Please point out to me where I have said that the second one is the one-and-only valid one"..."It is published in multiple sources that "Star Trek Into Darkness" has a capitalised the I."...which ignores the fact that STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS and Star Trek into Darkness has also been used. Without any interpretation or original research. Wikipedia's MOS is accurate enough.
 * Also, "However Star Trek Into Darkness allows for the title to be interpreted as either one and is also consistent with all of the officially released material."...thanks for your analysis, but this falls under interpretation and original resarch.
 * Finally, Wikipedia's MOS chose the representation of the title. A "certain group of users" have chosen to stick with what the MOS has chosen. Alternatively, some are arguing to change it. That's fine if you can show that it is an "exception based on reason and evidence". Please do so. DonQuixote (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see elsewhere on this page for multiple examples from multiple users. Also, no official source has used Star Trek into Darkness anywhere. And the MOS is only accurate when its accurate. And when its accurate is open to interpretation to debate. Nsign (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I havnt said that it is a subtitle and there isnt going to be a source that says that it is exempt from a Wikipedia guideline, because it is a Wikipedia guideline! So that is a stupid thing to as for. When you google it, Wikipedia is the ONLY publication that has into Darkness. Depending on the source, independent publications have a varying degree of reliability. MisterShiney    ✉    17:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the only publication that has a lowercase "i", as shown above. And yes, independent publications have varying reliability. So putting all the varying publications together, the titles have been STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Trek into Darkness. So saying that the second choice is the one-and-only accurate choice is interpretation and original research (even with just the first two choices). Wikipedia's MOS chooses the third one. DonQuixote (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Flying rage monster. I'm now forced to change my opinion, specifically because I have physical evidence. What evidence is that, you ask? I contacted Paramount through official Star Trek UK site, and they confirmed that it is one sentence. Here's a link to that. Apologies, but I'm therefore going to have to change my mind. Although stylistically, it's shown as title/subtitle, it's meant to be one. drewmunn (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well let's not get carried away - it adds some weight to the 'one sentence' theory but I'd still be inclined to take JJ Abrams' own statement on his intention to use a subtitle over someone moderating a Facebook page. Nsign (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly inclined to agree, but I have to say that this is the only official stance we have. Abrams' statement was made a long while ago, and made in advance of any decision, rather than about the final decision. drewmunn (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the time elapsed has any bearing on it - this was Abrams making a statement that he intended his film to have a subtitle. And Into Darkness is what it appears to be. He's made no statements since then saying he was going to make 'Trek' a connecting verb for the first time in 40 years. Nsign (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Intentions change all the time, indeed it is quite common for titles to undergo changes especially over a three year period). I agree that the Facebook statement isn't conclusive either way, but I believe it is sufficient to raise reasonable doubt over the claims that Into Darkness is a subtitle, and in such a case I think's better follow the MOS for the time being. If further evidence somes to light then the debate can always be revisited. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the consensus is still open so I'll go with the outcome of that. Nsign (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that changes anything. Since when did facebook become a reliable source? How can anybody possibly know who is running that page??douts (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked again at that page there is actually nothing to indicate that it is anything to do with Paramount or Bad Robot. Less than 2,000 likes for a Star Trek UK page? Looks like a fan-created page to me. Nsign (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From the Paramount UK website, it's linked directly as the official Facebook page. drewmunn (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected - my apologies. Nsign (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to Star Trek: Into Darkness. The posters make it clear that there is a title and subtitle.  The teaser (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/ ) at 0.56-0.58 seconds, makes it clear that it is a title and subtitle.  The way is is spoken in the real world involves a pause after "trek" and emphasis at the start of "into", consistent with common reading of a subtitle and inconsistent with the reading of a single readthrough-sentence.  Why did paramont not want to include a colon?  That is their decision on style, not meaning.  It probably has to do with colons not being suitable for url titles.  We have precedent for inserting the colon neglected by paramont with Star Trek: The Next Generation.  Star Trek into Darkness is unique to Wikipedia, confuses the reading, denies the possibility of the reading of the subtitle as the pseudotitle, and makes us look stupid.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with adding a colon, as that would be complete synthesis on our behalf. No source that I've come across uses a colon; one uses a hyphen (BBFC), but no source, official or otherwise, I can find uses a colon. Styling-wise, a colon can be inserted super-easily when needed, so I doubt they'd leave it out is it was intended in any way. drewmunn (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also disagree with adding a colon - it hasn't been used anywhere and the creators have specifically stated they would not use one. Nsign (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To play devil's advocate, the lowercase "i" is complete synthesis on our part as much as the colon. I have not seen it used anywhere other than Wikipedia. And hyphens and colons are practically interchangeable in these situations. Also, very relevantly, both Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Trek: Generations were never officially titled with colons either, yet we've added them here. There even seems to be discussion on those pages about whether or not the colons should really be there. It was just the filmmakers stylistic choice not to use them. Though I suppose with the Generations one it could actually be read as a single statement, about different generations of star trekkers. Not sure how the Nemesis one would work though. --DocNox (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Very interesting, thanks for drawing attention to that. It seems Wikipedia has form when it comes to making a judgement on the existence of subtitles based on reasoning and logic and making exceptions to the hallowed MOS when necessary. Who would have thought? Or perhaps it really was meant to be Star Trek Nemesis - the literal enemy of Star Trek. Or Rick Berman, to give him his proper name. Nsign (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Having read all others' views on this, I think inserting the colon is the best thing to do. This assumes that Abrams/paramount have decided to have no punctuation, as a matter of their style.  This is not inconsistent with anything I have seen.  There is plenty of evidence for the title/subtitle construction, and in formal English, and consistent with our MOS, a subtitle is delineated with a colon.  If the colon is unacceptable, my second choice is for a capitalised "Into", as an exception to our MOS, because a lowercase "into" is so problematic.  Third choice would be to go to "Star Trek 12" on the basis that the title is an artistic creation that cannot be simply rendered into plain text as required for a url title.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with adding a colon, despite the precedent set by the ST TNG page, as it has not been used in any official material and Abrams is on record as saying he would not use one. In my view simply capitalising "Into" would be enough and actually seems to me to a reasonable compromise for all parties. As there is no 100% reliable source that the title is either a sentence or a heading and a subtitle, neither side of this debate can claim with certainty that they are correct and both rely to some degree on interpretation and POV. In which case Star Trek into Darkness should not be used because it allows for no other interpretation than a sentence, and neither should Star Trek:Into Darkness as it allows for no other interpretation than a heading and a subtitle. However Star Trek Into Darkness allows for the title to be interpreted as either one and is also consistent with all the officially released material. This seems like a fair compromise which satisfies both sides of the debate and is consistent with both the spirit of Wikipedia and the guidelines set down in the MOS. Nsign (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. "Into Darkness" is clearly being used as a subtitle in all the marketing. In the trailer it even appears first on screen before "Star Trek" shows up. The filmmakers have never said it isn't a subtitle. All they've said is that there isn't a colon, and that could just as much come down to their specific MoS as them using a capital "Into" does. What if it's our punctuation style that differs and not our capitalization style? That said, that does not mean I actually support using a colon as that loses the second meaning of the title, which is that it is a single sentence and a literal trek into darkness. There's compelling evidence for both versions leading me to believe the filmmakers actually want it both ways, making this a unique case where the two versions of the title that acutally fit our MoS, Star Trek into Darkness and Star Trek: Into Darkness, are both wrong. Using one loses the second meaning. --DocNox (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note for closing administrator. It doesn't matter if there are eleventy billion sources showing the "I" of "into" is capitalized. Since there is no colon in the title, the "into" is a preposition of four letters. Therefore it must be lowercase per MOS:CT. All claims that "into darkness" is somehow separate from "Star Trek" are original research. Moreover, saying that "into darkness" must be a subtitle because that's how Star Trek titles have appeared before is not a valid argument and more original research. There's simply no compelling reason why a longstanding naming convention of this project should be overturned simply because "it looks better". The closing administrator will note the numbers of people in favor of breaking the guideline are not significantly greater than the numbers of those who wish to follow it. Certainly there is no suggestion of a consensus to override MOS:CT. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You are seriously disputing how Paramount have decided to name their film? There isnt a "looks better" argument. There is a growing consensus to have it changed and it is greater. Politicians are voted in on less. We are all using the same policies for our arguments and at the end of the day, we should fall back on what official sources are saying. We ourselves arnt providing a reliable source by having the wrong information portrayed. MisterShiney    ✉    17:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Must be"? "No compelling reason"? All your own opinion. The assumption that a lack of a colon indicates a sentence is also original research. Normal grammatical rules often do not apply when it comes to film/TV/book/other media titles. The MOS is flexible and not set in stone and exceptions can be made according to logic, reason, precedent and available evidence. The arguments on this page present multiple reasons for why the exception to the MOS should be made, none of them are simply "because it looks better" and to suggest that that is what has been advanced is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. Whether the arguments are "compelling" or not will likely be for an objective party to decide. Nsign (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You and your group have invented a subtitle out of thin air, and we are supposed to ignore MOS:CT because of your invention? Sorry, but that is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Unless you can furnish us with a reliable source that specifically states "into darkness" is meant to be a subtitle, then it must instead be read plainly as "star trek into darkness" and fall under the auspices of MOS:CT. Let me repeat: there are zero "official sources" saying that "into darkness" is a subtitle. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you can furnish us with a reliable source from the creators that specifically states "into darkness" is part of a sentence your own position remains POV and interpretation.
 * To suggest its been invented "out of thin air" is again bordering on dishonest. The arguments have been presented clearly with reference to official sources and the creators statement of intent to use a subtitle. As per Wikipedia: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". The MOS allows for exceptions based on this and those arguments have been outlined clearly and it will most likely be for an objective party to rule on as the whole debate is now at a circular impasse, if there is such a thing. I repeat - the assumption that the title is a complete sentence is just that - an assumption based on POV and interpretation and for which pretty much the only argument presented for keeping it that way is that it is a "style choice", a choice that allows for exactly this kind of exemption, Whereas the idea that it is a subtitle has more weight based on available evidence from official sources, statement of intent from the creators and precedent set across 40 years of Star Trek history. You have your own opinion but I would respectfully suggest that you cease accusing those who differ of having invented things "out of thin air" or of asking for the change because they "think it looks better". It is misrepresentation and bordering on bad faith. Nsign (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that is all complete bullshit. It is not bad faith at all. There's no evidence to support the theory that "into darkness" is a subtitle. None. It is the absence of evidence to the contrary that forces us to treat "star trek into darkness" as a complete phrase, and thus MOS:CT applies. I strenuously object to your disgraceful attempt to label me as "dishonest", etc. At the end of the day, you have a group of editors who wish to follow Wikipedia guidelines, and a group (including you) who do not. That's all there is to it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * None? The posters, with the new line, font change, huge font size change?  The teaser-trailer, where the two parts are separated just as per the posters, but additionally separated in time (The large subtitle appearing before the small generic title)?  The official foreign poster where the subtitle is the entire title?  The TV interviews where there is an undeniable pause always between "trek" and "into" with emphasise in "in"?  Or is it that you refuse to accept audi-visual sources, despite the subject to an audio-visual product?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's all supposition and original research, and academic anyway. It doesn't matter how it is styled by the studio, because as long as there is no colon it is treated by Wikipedia as "Star Trek into Darkness". -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't matter how the title is stylized by the studio then why are you taking into account the lack of a colon, which is also just stylization? --DocNox (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Scjessy, is it supposition AND original research to observe that every poster and trailer has a line feed and big font change after "Trek"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Children, enough. This article has endured too many battles over content. Get this done. RAP (talk) 14:44 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There isnt any need for foul language just because you are getting frustrated with the "discussion" I myself have had several shouting matches at the computer screen and have written shall we say several choice words on the page. But that is against Talk Page etiquette and doesnt serve any purpose. So please keep it clean. We are all here citing the same polices and to say that a group of editors are ignoring policies is just not true. I myself have cited numerous policies throughout this discussion as have most of the group who are for the move. Where as those who are against the move are playing the broken record of saying MOS:CT applies in all cases, when Wikipedia themselves say that this is not true and common sense needs to be used in some cases. MisterShiney    ✉    16:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When you find myself responding to arguments that cite official sources and statements from creators of the work, using reason and argument, with the retort "complete bullshit", you may accuse me of not having an argument.The evidence for the "Into" case has been clearly outlined by myself and several others. There is in fact much less available evidence supporting the "it's a sentence" theory.
 * "Strenuously object" all you like (but don't strain yourself too much). Your statements clearly accused others of presenting arguments on the sole basis of "because it looked better" and "out of thin air". This is demonstrably false if you take a cursory glance through the above contributions from several editors and thus, bordering on bad faith. So I say again - at best disingenuous, at worst dishonest. Nsign (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, there is nothing in the talk page guidelines that say coarse language like "bullshit" is unacceptable, so let's put that bullshit to rest right now. I stand by everything I have said, and my view is that Wikipedia's guidelines override the stylistic opinions of the "move" group. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but it says a lot about your ability to discuss things in a temperate and polite fashion with other editors. Nsign (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment "Into" is being used as an action verb if this is a full single title, not as a prepositional verb. That is to say, even if the argument that "into" darkness is a mid-sentence word was supported by sources (it should be noted that contemporary sources list it as the start of the subtitle), it isn't an insignificant preposition.  The fact that "the" is not used makes this a significant component of the title (title not being "Star Trek into the Darkness").  "Into" in this case is being used as an action verb (not a passive voice).  This isn't Gone with the Wind or Dawn of the Dead.  If this really is a sentence (which it is not) then "Into" is being used as an action, in and of itself.  As an action, it is not a solely mid-sentence preposition that would be lowecased. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  21:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So what are you saying? (sorry, if I am being blind) MisterShiney    ✉    21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Into" is a preposition. Please look it up if you don't believe me. There is no "action verb" exception. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe what he's saying is that "into" could be seen as part of the phrasal verb "Trek Into" making "into" a particle and not a preposition, which means it should be capitalized as particles form part of the verb. Imagine for a second the title is "Star Run Into Darkness". "Run Into" is a phrasal verb meaning to meet something unexpectedly, in this case darkness. Whether or not that actually works for "Trek Into" I'm not sure, but it would neatly skirt around this whole issue. --DocNox (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting - this indicates that those on the "its a sentence" side should accept that "into" is a particle and should be capitalized if they are contending that "Trek" forms the phrasal verb. If they are not contending that "Trek" is the phrasal verb then it is a subtitle and should either be capitalized or a colon added. I think capitalising would be the preferable choice as it allows for intepretation of both points of view. Nsign (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm of that disposition. I've done some research into phrasal verbs, and it very much seems that "Trek Into" would be considered a verb rather than a verb + preposition. In this case, I'd say capitalisation would show this. If you look at other Paramount films in their catalogue, (i.e. Transformers: Dark of the Moon), they use a MOS similar to Wikipedia's; they don't capitalise "of" or "the". However, they capitalise the "Into" in the Star Trek title, so there's obviously something beyond pure style going on there. drewmunn (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, but as "Star Trek" is a noun, then the "trek" in question in the title is a noun and not a verb, i.e. "a trek" and not "to trek", therefore the "into" is not part of a phrasal verb. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a serious point, or are you just dragging this out longer? Now you're saying Trek should be lowercase. Just bury this. This is now childish. RAP (talk) 14:32 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We've still got 1 day before the deadline of this Request, so everyone's entitled to their opinions! Rob, we're used to Trek being part of "Star Trek", what if they're inverting this and being out of the ordinary? I know that makes the sentence dubiously sensical, but I'm inclined to believe that it's laid out that way. drewmunn (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hardly childish. The point was raised, which on face value I thought was sensible, but I then had a serious think about the structure and came to the above conclusion which I have made in a civil and neutral way.  And at no point do I say that "trek" should be lowercase.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If one accepts for the sake of argument that it is a sentence then 'Trek' becomes part of a phrasal verb. Unless one seriously wants to advance the theory that the meaning of the title is "Star Trek franchise goes Into Darkness" rather than "Space Journey Into Darkness". But please don't. Nsign (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. And as "Star Trek" is already a noun, then there is nothing for "into" left to be part of a verb with.  Think of it as "A Walk in the Sun" rather than "Walk Into the Sun"  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually yes, necessarily. If (as I don't) one accepts its a sentence then logically Trek is a verb. If Star Trek is a noun then Into Darkness becomes the subtitle. I find it difficult to believe anyone would seriously infer that "Star Trek franchise into darkness" is the implied meaning of the title. One could even seek consensus on this but I suspect I know what the outcome would be and I doubt anyone wants to see that. And if the wording was 'A Star Trek into Darkness' you might have a point. But it isn't.Nsign (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you really don't understand my point. See the examples.  It can't be part of a phrasal verb.  That would mean that the whole "Star Trek" would become part of the same verb, i.e. "to Star Trek".  Whereas as a noun, it is "a Star Trek", as in a journey, leaving "into" to be a preposition.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * However, in having a look round for other examples, I'm not sure that the lowercase rendition of "into" in these are right. It's a similar problem to the one we have here.  In some of those cases I'd be inclined to capitalise.  But that's a whole other can of worms!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So how do you definitively know that it is "a Star Trek" and not "to Star Trek"? You don't. So why can't it be part of a phrasal verb? We're back in the pedantic swamp of POV and interpretation. Nsign (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: wikipedia editors can't say whether "trek" is a noun or a verb. That's original research. We need an independent reliable source to make that analysis for us. (And I should have mentioned this before, same goes with "is a sentence" vs "is a subtitle.) DonQuixote (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An "independent reliable source to make that analysis for us"? Do you know, I'm amazed some people ever fart through fear of shitting themselves. Nsign (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We can make whatever analysis we want, however (from right above the edit box) "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." DonQuixote (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So you need someone from Paramount to draw you a picture as to whether "Trek" is a verb or a noun but you're happy to assume the title is a complete sentence with no official sources or verification to support it? Nsign (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As a primary school teacher, my 8 year olds would tell you that "Trek" as a word is a doing word (you are doing a trek across the mountains". When you add Star to it that is when it becomes a noun (a part of speech typically denoting a person, thing, place or idea). In this context, without the colon, its a phrase. They are on a "Star Trek Into Darkness". It's not original research to correctly identify the grammar. As another editor has pointed out, that Original Research is for people releasing their scientific findings etc. MisterShiney    ✉    18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to point out your error, but if you are "doing a trek" then doing is the verb and trek is a noun (not a doing word/verb). On the other hand, if you were "trekking", then it is the verb.  Therefore in all your examples above, "trek" is the noun.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * :English is such a confusing language! And I have to flipping teach it! Is it any wonder why we have this problem! lol MisterShiney    ✉    22:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek into Darkness has been used by various sources. So, unless there's something to say otherwise, all three are acceptable. Wikipedia's MOS chooses the third one. DonQuixote (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Only it doesn't - you and certain others do. The hallowed MOS allows for exceptions and the reasons are clearly outlined elsewhere. And no official source from websites to posters to teasers - repeat, none - has used "into". Your verifiable "encyclopedic content" is nothing of the kind because you have no verification. Nsign (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose I am making the assumption that Star Trek is a noun because it is the name of the series, and thus makes more sense (to me) as a noun (i.e. it's about the journey, not journeying), but you're right, we can't be 100% sure of the intention. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A fair admission and the first concession I have seen from the other side that assumption and interpretation are involved. Much of this debate is based on what "makes sense". Nsign (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In this Twitter post Simon "Scotty" Pegg specifically says Trek is a verb in the title, not a noun. --DocNox (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting but Pegg isn't one of the creators, he's just acting in it. Nsign (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet, it was Pegg's original tweet that prompted the discussion that led to the current page title. Look, the guideline is clear. "Into" is a preposition no matter how many fantastic ways people can butcher our language to pretend otherwise. The only appropriate title is "Star Trek into Darkness" per the guideline. Anything other that will have to come from a consensus to ignore Wikipedia's guideline based on what a bunch of people think it should be, rather than what it actually is. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No it wasnt. That would be the trailers and other released promotional material. At the end of the day, it is up to Wikipedia to report the facts. Not impart our own grammar/styles that totally change the meaning of the title altogether. Into Darkness can stand alone as a title (which it does in the trailer) into Darkness cannot. What it is is Into. Guidlines, are exactly that...GUIDES. If a precedent arises (such as this), then exceptions can be made. MisterShiney    ✉    22:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A tweet sparked a discussion, but we waited for more and better sources, soon reaching a clear consensus for "Star Trek Into Darkness" that was misimplemented with a lowercase i on the admins own back at the last minute. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I kicked off this latest debate and I wasn't aware of any tweets as I'm not on Twitter. And Star Trek into Darkness is not what it actually "is". That's interpretation and POV. Nsign (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No - the initial move request specifically addresses the capitalisation issue and consensus was found for that! There has been no clear consensus to capitalise "into" since. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * NO no yes, No, the "initial" move request did not (perhaps you should date the early requests to distinguish).  On the previous RM, there was clear consensus for the move, without capitalisation being addressed, and then points (the MOS specifically) on capitalisation were made late, by the closer, agreed by a few, opposed by none (it was quick).  Since then there has been no clear consensus to capitalise "into", true.  I would not call anything in the above a "consensus", let alone clear.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just read through the archives. There were 3 move requests before this one, and none of them specifically addressed the into or Into issue. The capitalisation issue arose as a by-product of there being 2 move requests ongoing at the roughly the same time over whether to move from Untitled Star Trek Sequel to the current title in each of it's 2 forms. As far as I can there was never any clear consensus within either discussion on which version of the title it should be, so that part of your argument is null and void Rob.douts (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, in the move nomination it reads "although per WP:CAPS the "Into" must be lowercase". --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You've missed my main point completely. Yes, in that one it was mentioned in the nomination. BUT that nomination was one of 2 that were ongoing at the same time, so logically you have to take the 2 together - and combining the 2 there was no consensus regarding capping the I. The majority of comments supporting or opposing don't even mention the issue of capping the I.douts (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well put it this way - there's no clear consensus now. Nsign (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For either method. No consensus means we should follow the guideline and not change anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming there's no consensus right now - but that's up to an independent person to determine.douts (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Not quite sure the significance of the heading below, but as another contributor has ignored it so will I, vote below. Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * NoteAs an interesting adjunct I raised the phrasal verb question over on the Grammarly website (grammar q's & a's) and there were several responses but no clear consensus (sound familiar?) A couple of answers indicated that all titles are proper nouns, one indicated there's no right answer as it all depends on interpretation, and one said it should be treated as a title and a subtitle. http://answers.grammarly.com/questions/10287-star-trek-into-darkness-phrasal-verb/. Nsign (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not really relevant what they think. It's what we think here on Wikipedia.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't read it then. I said it was an interesting adjunct, nothing more. Nsign (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An hour before you asked the question at Grammarly, I asked a similar question; however, I deliberately hid the fact that it was a title to see what response I would get. The answer I received was interesting in that it showed how complicated the issue is. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A much more appropriate and neutral way of dealling with a technical issue without any unwanted input on specifics, an interesting answer and pretty much along the same lines as I was going. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, actually its best to be as specific as possible as context of use is equally as important as grammar, and a couple of the answers I got said that a title is just a title and is distinct from a normal sentence as titles don't have to play by "the rules". What's true for a sentence may not be true for a title. Whether they're right, I don't know. But I agree, the above cited answer is very interesting and indicates how complex this issue is. Nsign (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Star Trek: Into Darkness per SmokeyJoe. I don't care that the colon isn't on the poster; colons rarely appear on items themselves, but they're a very well established convention for separating titles and subtitles. It's clear from the placement of both phrases on the poster that this is a title and subtitle. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. If it gets the I capitalised, i'll be happy with the colon. MisterShiney    ✉    22:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That mroe or less reflects my train of though. I think "into" needs to be capitalised.  However, if "into" is capitalised, it means we've accepted that there is a colon, if transcribed correctly, which paramount may choose freely to not do, and putting the colon in suits our MOS, which is a good thing, and it happens that inserting a colon has precendent even in the Star Trek articles.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not much point having policies and guidelines if we ignore them for no apparent reason. The rationale is based on the official name which is not a consideration under policy. The later arguments have little coherency, other than that some editors have a very strong personal preference for the capitalisation. Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with personal preference. I've actually come round to the notion that as a sentence it works fine, it just takes getting used to. But the fact is we don't actually know its a sentence and there is no verifiable evidence or official material anywhere to suggest that's what it is, whereas there is a certain amount of evidence and logical reasoning to suggest that it may be a title and subtitle. The MOS allows for exceptions depending on whether or not those arguments are strong enough and an objective party will likely need to rule on that. Guidelines are guidelines, not immutable laws, and its a little disingenuous to suggest this change is being mooted for "no apparent reason". Nsign (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree totally that Guidelines are... not immutable laws, but here so are policies, under WP:IAR. I slightly resent the charge of being even a little disingenuous, I think that's a little over the top. Disagree that It's nothing to do with personal preference, having waded through all the above the logical starting point may be paraphrased we must capitalise "into" to reflect the official name and the arguments above then proceed to quite openly explore ways to justify this in terms of policy and guidelines. The function of the guidelines (and policies) is to help us to make these decisions, not to justify decisions already made, but that's a subtle distinction and it's very difficult to stay on this track. I accept the good faith in which the arguments above are offered but I think that failure to recognise that distinction and danger is the reason the discussion has become so long and convoluted. I'm also coming from a strong belief in Andrew's principle and looking for the best way forward. Andrewa (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the logical starting point is "we must capitalise to reflect the official name" but it is certainly part of it. The key sticking point as far as I'm concerned is that the currently rendered title makes an assumption of a sentence based on nothing more than POV and interpretation and the rendering allows for no other interpretation. That assumption is original research with no verifiable source and there is some evidence to suggest its incorrect - evidence not just based on "I don't want it to be a sentence", which is what some people have implied is being advocated. I think the arguments are demonstrably more than that, whether you agree or disagree. I appreciate your agreement re the guidelines - as that great diplomat Napoleon once said, "laws that are consistent in theory are often chaotic in practice". I'll also adopt Andrew's principle - there's always a way forward. Nsign (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The title's open to interpretations ("Star Trek: Into Darkness" or "Space Journey into Darkness", to paraphrase) and, given the lack of clarity from the producers, we might reasonably assume this is deliberate. In the absence of strong guidance to the contrary, the Wikipedia Manual of Style should take precedence.  MisterVodka (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is RoboCop acceptable as the title of every single RoboCop related article, yet Into Darkness is somehow deeply against policy or only a stylization as opposed to how the title is actually written?  Why don't all of these people interested in protecting Wikipedia's style conventions retitle all of the RoboCop articles Robocop, and then add an additional sentence in parentheses saying "(stylized as RoboCop)" as is done with Thirteen Ghosts and Seven?  In addition, if Star Trek Into Darkness is a stylization (it is not in my opinion) why doesn't someone edit the article with a parenthetical statement as described in the previous sentence?  I have also not seen a good response as to why all of the Wikipedia style people have chosen to invoke Wikipedia's style guidelines, but professional writers and editors in other fields (e.g. journalism) have almost unanimously chosen to ignore their very clear style guidelines in this case?  In this situation those guidelines are the same as Wikipedia's, and nearly all still write the title as Star Trek Into Darkness.  Kilcoyne(talk)
 * The MOS must be obeyed (repeat 100 times). In fact the Mayan apocalypse predicted for tomorrow will likely be caused by someone fiddling with the RoboCop article. Nsign (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's covered at MOS:TM which describes the usage of as CamelCase a "judgement call". Agreed, a bit of anomaly though.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But the guideline that you are talking about that supposedly supports a lower case "into" also says to use common sense when applying it, so it's a judgment call here too.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilcoyne (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support There is clearly a subtitle, and the creator stated that there would be one. They are not "trekking into darkness", all these films are called "Star Trek" plus a subtitle to differentiate them from the series. Even the first film was called Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which automatically calls for a capitalized "The". All guidelines leave place for common place exceptions and this clearly one of those. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence to suggest "into darkness" is a subtitle. As for your statement that they are not "trekking into darkness", consider the following from the official synopsis: "In Summer 2013, director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness." That's clearly an example of "trekking into darkness" right there. The fact that they capitalize the "I" of "into" in the synopsis has no significance with respect to MOS:CT, incidentally. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's evidence to suggest "into darkness" is a subtitle. Posters. Trailer. Precedent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is simply not true. The posters and the trailers stylize the words in all caps. Wikipedia ignores stylized text and presents it normally. Precedent is meaningless because it is well known the "supreme court" wanted to go in a different direction with the title. I repeat, there is NO EVIDENCE to support your view. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The CAPS use is not the evidence. It's the always-used line feed, the dramatic font change, the two seconds of the appearance of the large subtitle before the small title, the foreign poster that has only the subtitle, the Russian poster where a synonym of "into darkness" is used that cannot make the same sentence, the precedent of so many franchise films styled " : " that do not use a colon in the audio-visual work itself. Reject the significance of this evidence, some may, but to deny its existence is absurd. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Always-used line feed" is also something you made up that is not supported by the facts. There are numerous print examples, including in the official synopsis, where the title is written without a line feed. And again, the precedent is totally and utterly irrelevant. The first film broke precedent with being simply titled "Star Trek". Everything the "support" group points to relates to style, not substance. There is no "evidence" of anything. And in the absence of evidence, we go with the guideline and leave the title of this article unchanged. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Always-used line feed" [in the Star Trek Into Darkness posters, trailer] is there plain to see. Do you want links and the time in the trailer repeated?  I'm pretty sure the links are reliable, and I certainly didn't make them up.  Print examples mean rendering a visual creation into text, which is exactly the question here.  Do you consider title/subtitle to be just "style" without grammatical and underlying meaning? The first film is titled, by us, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", in italics.  And I don't recall any colons in the visual creative product. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To back up Joe's point, here is the poster for the first film. Here is the poster for "Into Darkness". Note the same different change in font size and same usage of different lines for title and subtitle. If it's done for one, it has to be done for t'other. douts (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Nsign (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood my use of quotation marks around "first". I was referring to the "first" Star Trek movie of the rebooted franchise - the 2009 film. It is a movie that set many new precedences, including not having a subtitle. From TMP to Nemesis, Star Trek films all had a colon in the title in print form. For the 2009 film and the new film, this old convention has clearly been abandoned (with the producers going out of their way to say no to the colon). So with the removal of the colon, and the use of the full title as part of a sentence in the official synopsis, we can see that "Star Trek into darkness" is meant to be a phrase. And even if you don't see that, the absence of anything else to guide us (that isn't original research about line feeds or the way it is styled on the screen) makes it fall under the auspices of MOS:CT. Case closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are misusing "original research" as a buzzword. Interpreting a line feed and font change as a subtitle marker is way below the threshold described at WP:NOR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gosh, you're right, how stupid we've all been. Case closed indeed. Except the convention hasn't "clearly been abandoned" at all - POV, original research and interpretation. As is everything you cite in the above post. You also ignore the fact that at the same time the producers said they wouldn't use a colon they specifically stated they would use a subtitle. Case open. Anyway let's give it a rest now - as Erik below has said there is no rock left unturned now and all we're doing is going round in circles. Have some eggnog. Nsign (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that is simply not true. The press releases and synopsis capitalise the I and precedent is not meaningless in this case - to establish context it is logical to look at the Star Trek franchise. It's also not just a case of stylizing all in caps either - Into Darkness is rendered in different fonts and letter sizes and in the case of the trailers, appears on a different screen prior to the appearance of the words Star Trek, strongly indicating it is a seperate phrase (consider - any film with a sentence as a title puts it on the one screen. It would be like He's Just Not That Into You splitting it across 2 screens). There is also a statement from the creator that he would use a subtitle for the sequel (some editors contend this is inadmissable evidence, I disagree). As has also been indicated elsewhere, Star Trek Nemesis and Star Trek Generations contain no official punctuation yet Wikipedia has chosen to insert colons to distinguish the subtitles (and I'm not even arguing for a colon, just the capitalisation of "into"). The MOS lets you do these things if they make sense. What there indisputably is not is NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE (if we're going to shout) that Star Trek into Darkness is a sentence and only a sentence, which is the only interpretation we currently have and which has led to this bugger's muddle. Nsign (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would like to ask the editors who have contributed thousands of words to this discussion to suspend their rhetoric here. We keep going around the same block, and it has piled up enough grief for the closing admin. I'm pretty sure no rock has been left unturned by now. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This conversation has been going round and round in circles now for weeks. Each user re telling the same thing in a different way. MisterShiney    ✉    22:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect some of us will be on our deathbeds with our families gathered round and our last words will be "...but there's this guideline...agghhhh...." Nsign (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I have just read through this amazing discussion. I'm a Star Trek fan so I understand how passionately people can be about the subject. But this circular debate is just insane. You people need to take a break and edit elsewhere for a bit! All that being said, I oppose the move because it seems that the people saying the title is a complete phrase make sense to me. "Into" is obviously being used as a preposition here, so people saying it comes under Manual of Style/Capital letters are right. - 76.124.173.41 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But in the Wikipedia article itself J.J. Abrahms says it's a subtitle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilcoyne (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wanted to point out this recent interview with Abrams where he refers to the film just as "Into Darkness", clearly using it as a subtitle. --DocNox (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not really. I've heard many people (including Abrams) refer to "The Empire Strikes Back" as simply "Empire", for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But The Empire Strikes Back can still be used as a subtitle (in fact it is). You will find that among fans when they discuss the films of Star Wars they will use "Jedi" "Empire" "New Hope" etc to refer to the films they are talking about. I would think that in an official interview that Abrams would not paraphrase this film/work like this and will get it out there as much as he can using its official title. But I suppose you would say this is my "personal interpretation" blah blah blah. But I say, thats BS because it's standard practice for any producer/director/writer when giving interviews about their works to mention the title as much as they can. MisterShiney    ✉    10:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct. That is indeed all your personal interpretation. You really have absolutely no idea. You are just guessing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As are you. Don't think it has escaped our notice that this whole thing could of been avoided if YOU (You were the person who put in the original move notice) had put in the correct title and then discussed imposing an obsolete MOS in this instance rather than being so determined to prove you are right by citing the same source again and again when you have been proved wrong by so many editors, official sources and precedents of the franchise. Editors who are determined to stick to the letter of Guidelines have no place editing Wikipedia if they themselves violate one of it's pillars:Wikipedia does not have firm rules! MisterShiney    ✉    19:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think after 7 years and almost 20,000 edits, I have a pretty good idea of how to edit Wikipedia. I did use the correct title and it conforms to a Wikipedia guideline that is not "obselete". Everything was done properly. "Precedents" are meaningless. Official sources have no bearing on Wikipedia guidelines. There's no clear consensus to change the title of this article so that it breaks MOS:CT, so it will be left as it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care how many edits you have. As an experienced editor you should know that there are exceptions to every rule and that Pillar 5 clearly applies as we are the ONLY source putting a lower case on it, regardless of our MOS (I am sure that other sources, Includkng Paramount, have their own MOS to follow). Precedents are not meaningless, otherwise why would be they used in a court of law? Precedents are there to justify a change/outcome. That Guidline (and I do stress guideline) has its place, but it is in this instance not here. You cannot determine if a precident has been reached because you are involved in the discussion. (At the momennt it would seem that there is a split with a slightly larger majority leaning for the capitalisation, or in the very least a colon). Official sources should have a bearing on guidelines, especially if a stink as big as this one has been kicked up. They should be what we lean back on when discussiong something like this. I eagarly await an independent admin to weigh in and provide mediation.  MisterShiney    ✉    00:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You know this argument was posted to Reddit. internet thinks we are losers for fighting over spelling. RAP (talk)21:42 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment I know it's not a vote. But it should be noted that currently it's 14 editors for the move, all citing multiple sources within Wikipedia (Including policies and guildlines, including the one being used by the opposition) and 11 against who all seem to be citing the same policy (Manual of Style/Capital letters). MisterShiney   ✉    01:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring reality. It is not in dispute that the studio and other sources present the title as "Star Trek Into Darkness" - we all agree on that. The issue here is that Wikipedia has always (with a few minor exceptions) ignored such styling and followed guidelines that everyone has agreed on. It is a bit like how the BBC insists on presenting "NASA" as "Nasa" (despite presenting its own corporation as "BBC"). It's because just like Wikipedia, the BBC has style guidelines they follow that (sometimes) seem unusual. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. Editors seem to be ignoring that Grammar changes EVERYTHING about about a title/sentence. By incorrectly portraying the title as it has been officially released we are changing the entire meaning of the title of the film. In a. Topic that has sparked just huge debate that goes against MOS, we should fall back on what official sources say. NASA has always been presented on BBC website/in bulletins as NASA (pronounced as one world, like NASA Themselves and other news broadcasters around the world) so that is obsolete and has no place in this discussion as it relates to acronyms, which is an entirely different thing altogether.  MisterShiney    ✉    16:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect (about both things). "Into darkness" has been used as part of a sentence in the official synopsis, so the meaning is clear and the lowercase "into" is appropriate. And my point about different organizations having their own style guidelines is totally relevant, since it shows an example of where GUIDELINES override STYLE. The BBC writes "NASA" as "Nasa". It has always done so. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the official synopsis? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a million sources, but here's the most obvious one. The key sentence to this discussion is: "In Summer 2013, director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness." Note how although the style is still to capitalize the "I" of "into", Paramount is still using the title in a complete sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Two versions.  Both say "In Summer 2013, director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness."  I see where you are coming from, but I still prefer the audio/visual evidence over the press release.  I understand if you do not.  I think Abrams is making fun of the silly title, or he is trying to have it both ways, as someelse previously said.  The sentence suggests an implied verbose version of the title as "A Film that takes the Franchise Star Trek into Darnkness".  I much prefer my theory that there is a Title & Subtitle, and the colon is undesired on graphical images and due to url reasons, and is consistent with the first ten movies that had no colon on their posters and an inserted colon in the Wikipedia articles.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Trekmovieweb and Treknews.com both have reproductions of the synopsis as it was sent directly to them - here's one link: http://www.treknews.net/2012/12/20/updated-star-trek-into-darkness-synopsis/. I unfortunately don't have one myself as Paramount for some reason didn't see fit to send me it. I am however prepared to assume that since multiple websites have reproduced the same synopsis, they aren't acting in collusion with something they've made up and do in fact possess the official one. Also, the fact that the press release uses it is a sentence is not conclusive. The latest issue of Empire magazine has interviews with Abrams and various cast members where they repeatedly call it Into Darkness, implying a subtitle. The meaning is far from clear at this point. Nsign (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't imply a subtitle. It implies laziness. Nobody wants to keep saying "Star Trek into Darkness" in an interview, so they abbreviate it to just "Into Darkness" - exactly like people shorthand "The Empire Strikes Back" to just "Empire". For an extreme example, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" was shorthanded to "The Origin of Species". At this point, I think serious consideration should be given to changing MOS:CT. I do not support going against the guideline, but I do see that the guideline is pretty retarded. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well clearly it does imply a subtitle or else we wouldn't be having this discussion. As for changing MOS:CT, I think you're right, it should be changed. Not sure if I'd personally want to get involved in opening that can of worms though. Nsign (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this going to be resolved any time soon? I mean, come on, this has been an embarrassing argument for the past month. I'm remaining neutral here, whatever you select, whatever. Get 'er done. RAP (talk) 17:04 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well normally an uninvolved administrator will come in and determine whether or not the page should be moved; however, without a clear consensus it will likely be left as it is. Dispite all the bickering, this has actually been a useful discussion because it has shown that MOS:CT is probably flawed and needs attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support either "Star Trek Into Darkness" or "Star Trek: Into Darkness". Reliable sources and the official website show "Into" capitalized.  Ω  pho  is  05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile your support with MOS:CT, and what sources can you provide that support the use of a colon? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, please stop being argumentative. Users do not have to provide detailed explanations for their support/oppose arguments. Especially when so many reasons have been provided above! MisterShiney    ✉    15:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MisterShiney. Although, to show my reasoning, the first line of the MoS page states, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Ω  pho  is  18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support—it’s (perhaps intentionally) ambiguous whether “Into Darkness” is a subtitle, but I universally hear it spoken as such, so it’s probably best for the article title to allow for the possibility until it’s confirmed either way. It is possible that they named it as “TITLE SUBTITLE” without a separator (and the first word of titles or subtitles is always capitalized). To insist that it’s not a subtitle is WP:OR, just as much as inserting a colon would be. By the way, is this discussion really still open? I can’t believe it hasn’t been closed yet. —Frungi (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"Star Trek Into Darkness When the crew of the Enterprise is ... for the only family Kirk has left: his crew. Visit the official Star Trek Into Darkness movie website."
 * Support— At least four citations in the "Title" section itself spell it with a capital I, and I've just seen that the official database caps the I and spells it Star Trek Into Darkness. See http://www.startrek.com/page/star-trek-into-darkness.

--Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral observation: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," said the Manual of Style. If it is decided that "Into Darkness" is not a subtitle, then "into" will need to rendered in lowercase, as per the MoS. Cheers! Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 06:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed that that is the crux. Is "Into Darkness" is a subtitle?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There's something else to consider: We're an encyclopedia. How encyclopedic are we if we list a spelling that no major newspaper or magazine nor the filmmakers themselves use? --Tenebrae (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well yes. Why do some Wikipedians insist to such an extreme on following a MOS guideline?  Newspapers have their own MOSs, and they allow for this exception without apoplexy.  A reason for exception in this case is ambiguity of meaning impacted by punctuation/capitalization.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Concur. No guideline can ever cover every exigency became the human mind can come up with infinite variations on things. Mostly people don't, so guidelines work 99% of the time. But every now and then someone comes up with some new twist that the guidelines don't concretely address, and this is one of those times.


 * That said, here's a possible compromise solution, based on Se7en, Thir13en Ghosts and similar films: "Star Trek into Darkness (stylized as Star Trek Into Darkness)". --Tenebrae (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support that approach, particularly because I do not believe "into darkness" is a subtitle (otherwise it would've been given a colon). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But saying it's stylised is still personal opinion and original research. Especially when it is not an obvious stylisation like those examples. MisterShiney    ✉    19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This discussion has boldly gone into darkness. I cannae take anymore, Cap'n. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no! I think you've got them on the run! :) Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope that was sarcasm Erik...? At the end of the day, I think we are at an impasse that wont be solved will an impartial admin comes in and settles it. MisterShiney    ✉    19:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as an "impartial administrator" when talking about Star Trek. Any Wikipedian who is not also a Trek fan is unworthy. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's hard to tell without vocal tone or facial expression, but I'd have to assume you're being jocular. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, Scjessey is quite right. Any admin not from deepest, darkest Africa who is non-appreciative of the subject has an unacceptable anti-Trek POV.  And further, any other admin must belong to the correct side of the other endless Trek debate or is similar ineligible.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, it's not POV or subjective to call the cap-I title stylized. In fact, it follows the definition of the term: Without a colon or a lowercase-I, which is standard spelling and punctuation, then it's stylized spelling and punctuation. That part really isn't an issue. --21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it is, because we are going against what it officially has been called/referred to as in all of its promotional material and we are putting our on style on it because "we know best". MisterShiney    ✉    21:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, no, just the opposite. Wiki style may be to render it as standard punctuation/grammar ("Star Trek into Darkness / Star Trek: Into Darkness"). But the title as the filmmakers render it is no standard punctuation/grammar (Star Trek Into Darkness). Anything that's not standard is stylized, by definition. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree at all that it would necessarily have a colon if it was meant to be a subtitle. Just look at the StarTrek.com site linked earlier that not only doesn't use a colon with Into Darkness, but doesn't use one for any of the TNG films either. It's stylization as much as anything else. I was also trying to think of another film this might have happened to and all I could come up with was Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. But luckily "beyond" beats the silly 5-letter rule or else I'm sure there'd be people trying to lowercase it too. --DocNox (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of movies where this very thing happens. Here's one that even sounds similar: Journey into Fear. Also Journey into Darkness, Jump into Hell, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, but I don't agree. Those films were released without online media hype/sources that we have today. It should be noted though, when googling those film titles, their respective Wikipedia articles are the only pages that lower case them. Surely as an encyclopedia we should using the real world usage? MisterShiney    ✉    22:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I meant specifically where it could be interpreted as both a subtitle and a sentence. Not sure how any of your examples work as a subtitle. Mad Mad Beyond Thunderdome does, and is often written as Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome and even Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome. --DocNox (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But being a title it doesn't follow the standard punctuation/grammar. Could Star Trek be considered a trademark? In which case it would fall under MOS:TM in which it would be capitalised. Dont forget guys that one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia is that real world usage should be reflected when possible. Hence why I am pro capitalisation. If it was being used as a lower case then I would be right there with you guys, but it isn't. MisterShiney    ✉    22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hum, "Star Trek" is a trademark of CBS studios. It was previously trademarked by Paramount Studios. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Have to agree. If the likes of The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly and the official Star Trek site itself use the cap-I &mdash; which I agree is grammatically maddening &mdash; then I'm not sure what purpose we're serving by being contrary to WP:COMMONNAME usage. That said, perhaps the compromise suggestion I offered may be something we could all meet halfway on. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That way lies madness. Why do we have a MOS, if not to prevent us from having to check sources every time we want to know how to capitalize something?  Powers T 02:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Per MOS:TM:  "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on "Standard" this isn't a standard scenario. Otherwise there would be a clearer policy for it. Dont forget the rest of that line "as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one" which would imply that if it is already in use in titles, then use it.
 * Also the first general is "Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names" this is a name, therefore is capitalised. MisterShiney    ✉    09:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, nonsense. This is a completely standard scenario.  MOS:TM is telling us to follow the usual style guideline for proper names and ignore the "official" capitalisation.  We have a usual style guideline at MOS:CT, so we wouldn't be making one up.  The guideline is completely clear, it's just that you've completely misinterpreted it.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, no editor's contribution are nonsense and I would ask you to keep that opinion to yourself. You are basically implying your view is better than other peoples. It is obvious that common sense needs to be used and real world usage applies in this scenario. Each policy is open to interpretation in every different scenario which is why we have the Not Law and WP:COMMONNAME. English is such a complex language, words arnt always used for the same thing all the time. Their interpretations are subject to change. MisterShiney    ✉    10:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I am not implying my view is better than other people's. All I am doing is pointing out that you have misinterpreted the guideline at MOS:TM, for the benefit of other editors, as you are claiming that if we follow MOS:TM we should capitalise.  This is not the case.  The guideline is clear, it states that we shouldn't capitalise.  It's whether we choose to ignore that guideline or not that is the issue here.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you are. You say Po-tay-toe. I say Po-tah-toe. This conversation is going round and round in circles. I would be having fun if I wasnt so dizzy. MisterShiney    ✉    10:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd point to the level of debate and discussion that this subject has prompted over the last month as an indication of how this is emphatically not a "completely standard scenario". If it was it would have been easier and faster to resolve. If its a sentence, should Wikipedia make an exception to the guideline? Probably yes, because we're one of very few resources using the lower case "into" and as has been pointed out, this is an encyclopedia and should aim to reflect real world usage. However I'd accept a no verdict without argument if there was verifiable proof that it is a sentence. If its a subtitle that hasn't been colonised should it be capitalised? Of course. Or even add a colon as Wikipedia has already done that with Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Trek: Generations, despite the fact that we have no verifiable proof that they are actually subtitled. Personally I'm against the colon as we'd be assuming too much. Personally I think simply capitalising "Into" is enough as it allows for both interpretations - a sentence or a subtitle - and it reflects the real-world situation: none of us are 100% sure either way.
 * Then again I'm getting to the point where I can't really be buggered with the whole thing given how circular its become and wish that someone objective could just bang a gavel on this and put us out of our misery. Nsign (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is verifiable proof that it is a sentence. It is used as such in the official synopsis issued by Paramount Pictures. Even though the stylize the text with capital letters (presumably they must do this for trademark reasons), they still use it in a sentence. But even if this were not the case, the guideline applies to all composition titles anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's just an example of a studio employing a title in a dramatic and "clever" fashion in the wording of their publicity. It isn't proof that Into Darkness isn't a subtitle or that Star Trek isn't being used as a heading and trademark. And I doubt it will persuade anyone on this side of the argument that "Into" should remain uncapitalised. Nsign (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Who are you to say what the studio intended to do by including the title as part of a sentence? I'd argue it specifically shows the title is meant to be read as a sentence, with "into darkness" having a particular emotional meaning that relates to what happens in the movie. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See, this is what I mean, it's just wearily circular now. I can respond with points about Abrams stating he'd use a subtitle, the differences in fonts and the title appearing seperately in the trailers, precedent, the capitalisation in various sources et al ad infinitum. We won't get any further along because its all been covered already and both sides have an argument. Didn't Heath Ledger say something like this is what happens when a strong force meets a solid object? Same thing here. Someone, please - end it somehow. Nsign (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely essential reading for anyone who has been involved in this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Love it. This page should be added to this article too: http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/web/10-of-wikipedias-wackiest-arguments-675694. Nsign (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Scjessey: I argue that it does not make grammatical sense to “star trek into darkness”, as, to my knowledge, “star trek” has never been used as a verb by anyone. Assuming and enforcing that it’s a phrase (not a sentence) is just as dangerous and Wrong as assuming and enforcing that it’s a title-subtitle, until and unless we get confirmation either way. And no, the lack of punctuation does not confirm that it’s not a subtitle, or else we would not have every consulted source capitalizing “into”. —Frungi (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I came here with half a mind to perform a non-admin closure, but that's probably not a good idea. For the record, I Support the move (contra MoS) because I've found the arguments in favor sufficiently convincing. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 23:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. We always tell the new people that it's impossible to screw anything up on Wikipedia since its all saved anyway and thus can be reverted, so why don't we take our own advise and just go for it. Also, from where I sit, this is a clear cut case of the rules preventing us from making a simple change that as people have pointed out above seems to be supported by official material. As I said above, if it turns out to be a little "i" instead of a big "I" then it's a small matter for an admin to move the page back. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 8 January 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.

Post-closing discussion
Not to reopen the discussion, but how on earth can with more editors supporting the move not be a consensus? I am aware that polling is not a substitute for discussion., but we have extensively discussed the topic at hand, with people even commenting that the argument for moving were sufficiently convincing (some editors even switched their views) so 1) Why wasn't an independent Admin involved in coming down on either side explaining their reasoning? and 2) What happened to "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly? and did the closing admin really do that?" MisterShiney   ✉    09:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can always leave him a message on his talk page asking for a more in-depth review of the arguments (although he is semi-retired), and you could start a move review after that. drewmunn (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have done that. Saying that, another one of his closures was disputed on similar grounds. For the record, I would be saying the same thing no matter what side I was on. MisterShiney    ✉    10:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a classic "no consensus" as this will never resolve this at this time. I think the closing admin clearly made the right decision.  The fact that there were a few more support !votes is irrelevant, and I'm positive that this experienced admin took the quality of the arguments (and their relation to the relevant style guidelines) into account.  It's best to keep this closed for now, otherwise we'll be arguing for months and months.  Perhaps, once the film is released, there will be some more developments regarding the title.  We can re-address at a later point if necessary.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * MisterShiney makes a fair point in that the only reason given by the admin is 'no consensus after 29 days'. I would have thought given the scope and length of the arguments from both sides that it would at least merit a little more comment from the person making the end decision. Nsign (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear the closing admin simply followed policy. When no clear consensus has been reached in a discussion about article titles (as is clearly the case here, particularly since it goes against a longstanding Wikipedia guideline), the title remains unchanged if it is stable or changed to the one used after emerging from stub status (which doesn't apply here). The title has been stable since September last year. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with both MisterShiney and Nsign in that I would have liked a little more, maybe even a suggestion as to how to progress in the future (taking into account the strong opinions on both sides, an admin's suggestions on progression would be helpful). As I'm currently somewhat side-less on the matter, I don't really care how long it takes to get resolved, so I say we wait some more before opening another discussion. I don't think the release of the film itself will clear it up, but its listings in the MPAA and the BBFC should become more detailed, and hopefully more helpful. An official statement from the production company would be great, but I think they're intentionally vague (production has stalled whilst they sit and laugh at our discomfort; we're their main source of entertainment I'm sure. In fact, we should get part of the bonus section on the DVD dedicated to charting this ongoing debate). drewmunn (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm certain the producers of the film deliberately came up with this title to irritate Wikipedians. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. "No consensus" and no move was the right call. In five and a bit months we should have the plot. It may help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but even so, a little more information from the admin who looked at it would be much appreciated. Especially when if you look on his talk page, a discussion of a similar length of time was reopened by him when the editor contested it because (like ours) the discussion didnt consist only of opinions and he didnt explain how he thought the different opinions outweighed supporting policies out weighed each other. Because as per RMCI the content of arguments is supposed to matter and by the Admin by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. Just asking for a little clarification which IS needed. MisterShiney    ✉    13:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the closing admin needs to explain himself. It's hardly contentious that there was no consensus.  We were clearly never going to reach an agreement!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is a waste of time. Per WP:RMCI, the move would not have been made anyway because it violated one of Wikipedia's naming guidelines (MOS:CT). That, plus the stability of the current title (stable since September) and the clear lack of consensus made this a routine close. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the length of this discussion they most certainly should! Especially when more users wanted the change. So why was their argument less substantial than those against? It's a simple request and a reasonable one. It was only stable because someone put in the wrong title when they named it! Lets face it, if it had been closed and the move made, you would want to know why the Admin agreed with those wanting the change. MisterShiney    ✉    14:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RMCI: "any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2013
 * So basically what you are saying is that the last month of discussion was a complete waste of time and we shouldnt have been discussing it in the first place? MisterShiney    ✉    14:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A number of us have been trying to tell you exactly that. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, in all but the most extreme circumstances, trump any local consensus to violate them. And there's no way it could be argued there was anything approaching a consensus to move in the first place, unless the arguer had no idea what "consensus" actually meant. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to see the month has been productive for us all then. MisterShiney    ✉ 

I am so going to laugh if it comes up when it gets reviewed for GA and we get told off that it isn't reflective of the real world usage etc etc. MisterShiney    ✉    14:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should all have a barnstar each for not going mad. Meanwhile, the conversation wasn't vain, because according to Wikipedia, consensus can change. drewmunn (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus can indeed change; however, that would have to be at the community level. You need to get a consensus to change MOS:CT before you can think about changing anything here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, there is scope for existence outside strict guidelines, and if an admin felt we had reached consensus despite MOS, we would be at Star Trek Into Darkness right now. drewmunn (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gotta agree with MisterShiney on this point - some clarification/explanation from the closing admin would have been useful, particularly when this comes up again (which i have no doubt it will do at some point). douts (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on, folks; there's a big difference between "no consensus to move" and "consensus to not move". The closer found the former, not the latter, and it's baffling that anyone could argue otherwise.  Do you really see a consensus anywhere in the above discussion?  Powers T 14:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's the point. We didn't find consensus, but we could have liked a little more to explain what processes we should go through in the future when this same debate happens next month. And the month after that. This same discussion, almost word for word, will keep happening, and we just wanted an admin to say "leave it for 2 months" or something so we could keep unnecessary repeats of this to a minimum, or explain a procedure that could help us reach consensus. drewmunn (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't need an admin to say that. Any subsequent move discussion that takes place in the next few months, absent new evidence in favor, is likely to be closed quickly on procedural grounds.  We can even agree, as editors, that we won't entertain new move discussions for a certain period of time.  Powers T 15:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia idea of Consensus in itself is flawed (and incorrect) at the end of the day...we will never get EVERYONE (which is the wiki definition) to agree to the same thing. Consensus is the general/majority agreement, which to me (call me biased) would say the consensus here was to move. Regardless of being involved, that is how I would of called it.  MisterShiney    ✉    15:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A consensus is when most people agree (which is certainly not the case here) and the few who don't are obviously outliers. Anyway, this has become something of a meta-discussion unsuitable for this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But then how do you define most? Most = More than right? More users were for the move than against. So logically most people agree the move was appropriate. I'm just saying. MisterShiney    ✉    15:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Then read it again.  It doesn't mean what you think it means.  Powers T 15:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In a consensus discussion concerning a page move, "most" means "almost everyone". But even if 99/100 agreed to the move, it would probably still be rejected if it was violating MOS:CT. The whole move argument has been predicated on the existence of an implied colon between "Star Trek" and "into Darkness", and quite a number of editors supporting the move based their decisions on that, rather than a sound understanding of Wikipedia's naming conventions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, it's not true that "The whole move argument has been predicated on the existence of an 'implied colon' between 'Star Trek' and 'into Darkness'." Some of us were arguing this, which I quote from 06:32, 4 January 2013 and has nothing to do with colons and everything to do with an inflexibility that our own guidelines don't encourage: " We're an encyclopedia. How encyclopedic are we if we list a spelling that no major newspaper or magazine nor the filmmakers themselves use?" --Tenebrae (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The spelling is the same, it's merely the case styling that is different. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the spelling is different. Having Catholic tastes and having catholic tastes are two different things. Words are spelled differently if they are capitalized or not. A grammar teacher considers the following as incorrect spelling: "The dog Jumped on the couch." We can discuss which is the right form to use, but there isn't a question whatsoever that we're spelling the title differently from every reputable publication and the filmmakers themselves. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that is not spelling. It is styling. It changes the way it looks but does not change the meaning. That is why its status is determined by a "manual of style" and not a "manual of spelling". And again, we can argue "reputable publications" until we are blue in the face but it won't change anything because Wikipedia adopted a site-wide style for composition titles. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I hadn't wanted to bring this up before, but I'm a professional journalist and editor. In the sentence "The dog Jumped on the couch," the word "jumped" is misspelled though the meaning doesn't change between uppercase and lowercase. That's not a matter of style since the correct, lowercase spelling is the same everywhere. No copy editor would ever let "The dog Jumped on the couch" go through, because it contains a misspelling. I make my living at this, so please show good faith that I know basic grammar, punctuation, syntax, spelling and the definition of words. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Most university writing guides include a list of abbreviations to use in order to indicate various sorts of writing errors. Spelling mistakes are commonly indicated by "sp". Errors of capitalization are commonly indicated by "cap". They are considered different sorts of orthographic errors. See Orthography, which says that orthography "includes rules of spelling; other elements of written language that may also be considered to be part of orthography include hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation." So spelling is one element of orthography and capitalization a different one. The Oxford dictionary defines "spell" as "write or name the letters that form (a word) in correct sequence." The letter "i" and the letter "I" are the same letter (there are 26 letters in the alphabet, not 52), so the difference is not a spelling difference. 99.192.89.41 (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Most = "almost all". Consensus = "A process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Wikipedia's idea of WP:CONSENSUS is WP:POLICY and not "flawed and incorrect". --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, Wikipedia isn't infallible Rob. Policies can be flawed and editors are at liberty to point that out if they like. Now I agree that consensus was never going to be reached on this and I'm happy to let the matter of the title rest for now but MisterShiney does have a point here. Policy states that "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions". I'm prepared to assume that the admin who ruled did do this. It would only have been more helpful if they had taken a little more time to outline their thinking to illustrate that it was done. Its not a big ask and I've seen it done frequently on Wikipedia as a matter of course. The simple sentence "no consensus reached after 29 days" on the heels of such a lengthy debate was bound to get on people's tits. Nsign (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair on the closing admin, it was always going to be nightmare closing this one. He probably tried to keep the language neutral and avoid getting involved in order to avoid further argument and this kind of backlash!  It is a clear case of no consensus to move and that is how he called it.  Probably best if we draw a line under this now.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK!


 * In all seriousness, we don't want to open the floor up to anything new on the actual styling argument. What we wanted to get out of this was a little more from the admin. I understand that it's difficult, and I know he's semi-retired, so I'm not going to say he was completely wrong not giving us any hints. However, if this flares up again any time soon, then it may be worth asking him, or another notable admin in this area, to lend a hand mediating and keeping us all grounded. drewmunn (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is right to assert that "There was no clear consensus", and "the change would've gone against MOS:CT" (although my suggestion was consistent with the MOS). But it is not OK to asser "the title had been stable since September last year".  The title has been under challenge continuously.  "Stability" is not well measured by editors not move-warring.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As mentioned before, this issue isn't going away until we do it right. I mean that with respect to all parties, but also with a bit of matter of factness.  The current title for this article is not correct.  You can argue WP until we are all dead.  This is not a matter of style, and the closer the film is to release, the more painfully obvious this error becomes:  On Facebook today —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Facebook != RS. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Might help to know where that picture came from. A fan page? J.J. Abrams’s personal official page? And to Scjessey: It depends on the source that posts to it. —Frungi (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's here, in case anyone is interested and can stomach navigating to that god-awful Facebook cesspool. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone on either side of this is arguing that Paramount, the filmmakers, official sites and the mainstream press isn't spelling it with a cap I. It's whether Wikipedia should spell it with a cap I. At least that's one thing we can all agree on! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it’s whether the capital I is the first letter of a subtitle (if not, it should be lowercase here). That official post seems to indicate that it is, but I ask that any debate on that point be held in the appropriately titled section below rather than smearing arguments all over the place. —Frungi (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My comment has been copied below to carry forward the discussion in the appropriate area. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 21:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between polish and Polish? One shines, and the other is a people. What will be happening conversationally when people talk about this movie, will people talk about seeing "Into Darkness" or "Trek into Darkness" ? Are people talking about seeing the new "Star Trek" or the new "Star" movie? convesationally it is clear that this movie should be "Star Trek Into Darkness" where the stylistic change is the the lack of colon or comma after Trek.

Out of curiosity, why isn't the same furore happening over on "Star Trek: The Next Generation", which according to the rules, seems it should be "Star Trek: The next Generation"? 59.167.194.48 (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because 'next' is an adverb, so doesn't fall under the same guideline as the prepositional 'into'. drewmunn (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A better example would be Star Trek Nemesis, which is interpretable as "Nemesis of the star journey". Or "Star Trek Insurrection", which one could interpret as being about an insurrection during a star journey. Still, as it being a subtitle is clear from the formatting in the movie poster, Wikipedia (correctly and sensibly) lists them as "Star Trek: Nemesis" and "Star Trek: Insurrection". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.45.47 (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so the argument for making it lowercase seems to center around WP rules. In that case, I ask why pages for titles like "Two Weeks Notice" have not been corrected? The WP would say that the example I just used should be written as "Two Weeks' Notice," but it was not. As a result, the page does not have an apostrophe, either. WP does not always apply to titles. If you want to see just how stupid making the i lowercase is, just do a Google search, and look at the results. On the first page, *only* the wiki page has it as lowercase. DeeJaye6 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a bit different. The film is named one thing, which is grammatically incorrect. However, we can't change the name. If they'd named it "Two wEeks' Notice", we'd change it (capitalise the W, make the E lower), but we don't correct the grammar of someone else's name. drewmunn talk 17:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary of arguments
I’d just like to summarize the arguments for both sides, just to make sure everything’s clear. Edit: This list has been replaced with the more complete (but still brief) page User:Frungi/Star Trek Into Darkness capitalization. I encourage all interested parties to read all the arguments and counterarguments for both sides there.
 * Arguments for the lowercase I
 * “Into Darkness” may not be a subtitle, and “Star Trek into Darkness” may have been intended to be read as a sentence.
 * Assuming it’s not a subtitle, the MOS dictates a lowercase preposition.
 * Treating “into Darkness” as a subtitle without punctuation would be original research.
 * Allowing it to be interpreted as a subtitle would play into the studio's marketing.
 * The creator said that the title would not have a subtitle with a colon.


 * Arguments for the uppercase I
 * “Into Darkness” may be a subtitle, in line with the precedence of every Star Trek movie title longer than two words.
 * Assuming it is a subtitle, the MOS dictates the first word be capitalized.
 * Treating “Into Darkness” as part of a sentence would be original research.
 * Capitalizing the possible subtitle would allow it to be interpreted either way.
 * Every official, and the vast majority of secondary, sources capitalize it, and Wikipedia should follow this real-world use.
 * The sentence “Star trek into darkness” makes no grammatical sense.
 * The creator said that the title would have a subtitle rather than a number, and that the subtitle would not have a colon.

Does that cover it? —Frungi (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. When on topic, that's what we've been saying for months.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * However, the discussion is closed and there was no consensus to move. We don't want to be having the same argument again so soon without any new information, otherwise we'll be going around in circles for months.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes that's a good summary. I'd possibly add that capitalizing "Into" allows for both interpretations, whereas a lower case "into" only allows for one. Nsign (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that Wikipedia does not have firm rules and If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them which by capitalising the I it would improve the article  making it reflect more the official title and released material.  MisterShiney    ✉    09:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everyone agrees with you. Hence the move request was closed with no consensus to move.  Remember we are not discussing the merits of a move here again, just whether the closing admin correctly followed procedure.  He did.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not longer "original research" to say that Into Darkness is a substitle. As we get closer to the release of the movie, the article's current name will become painfully obvious, even more so that now.  Just today on Facebook from the official account of Star Trek: Star Trek: Into Darkness Say what you will about the source, it is an official source that is very clear in its statement. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  14:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet, in every other instance, the "official account of Star Trek" on Facebook says Star Trek Into Darkness with no colon. This debate is over. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This debate is not "over". No consensus is not a final decisison.  Typically, "no consensus" means leave it alone for a couple of months.  A couple of months plus the time spent in formal discussion before the close is probably most reasonable.  How do you style a subtitle?  You are unimpressed with  June 4 2009.  JJ Abrams: if they make a sequel, "it would have a subtitle instead of a number.".  OK.  Let's wait for new information.  I'm sure there will be some in late May.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Enough already! There's a new section below if you want to carry on, but this conversation is not meant for discussing the original point of the request. drewmunn (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was my point. I didn't mean it will never be debated again, just that this one had run its course. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dude...I was adding a point to the summary! And it isn't a case of if the admin followed procedure, we are discussing his reasons, of which he provided were minimal. MisterShiney    ✉    10:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree with Rob. What I have seen are two editors who were vociferous in insisting the title have a lowercase "into" based on an inflexible rigidity to Wikipedia style even when every major mainstream publication, from Time to The New York Times, as well as the filmmakers, spell it with an uppercase "Into."


 * Issues of whether or not the last two words are a subtitle or whether there should be a colon are irrelevant and original research.


 * For the administrator to have closed this discussion without addressing the fact that every style guide, Wikipedia's included, allows for common-sense exceptions, was premature. I'm not saying the admin had to agree that this was a time for an allowable exception. I'm saying that for an admin to close this discussion without acknowledging the fact that this encyclopedia stands alone with a spelling no other reputable source does is leaving the job incomplete. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What he said. Nsign (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Then we should wait for the closing admin to comment rather than try to open up the whole discussion again. Mr Shiney asked for his comment, so let's see what he says.  And it's a hell of a lot more than two editors opposing the move.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Treating Star Trek into Darkness as part of a sentence would be original research" - actually, no. It is used as such by Paramount in the official synopsis of the movie. And it makes grammatical sense, just as "long walk into obscurity" or "lost in space" or countless other similar constructs. The "arguments" presented above aren't presented neutrally. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sjessey, its still original research as that press release can be interpreted as Paramount trying to be clever. There is no official confirmation. And still - if it is a sentence (and it may very well be) there are arguments for why "Into" should be capitalised. Nsign (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, everyone, stop! The discussion is closed as no consensus, and it's clear we're not going to find one unless there are further developments.  Let's put this to bed.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they’re presented from each viewpoint, at least that was my intent. Personally I feel it’s a subtitle and we should use a colon, but until and unless there is clear, incontrovertible evidence, it’s original research either way. —Frungi (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As I'd mentioned earlier, it's only Rob Sinden and Scjessey arguing vociferously for the lowercase "into." It was premature to close the RfC since while there may no be consensus for uppercase "Into," there's clearly no consensus for lowercase "into" either. That's a quandary, but it's not one served by closing the discussion. RfCs can be re-listed and that may be the best course here. Rob and Scjessey are going to say no, so let's presume that from the start and save them the trouble of saying so. What do other editors think?--Tenebrae (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I may disagree with the opposing editors, but I still think it’s a mistake to disregard their opinions. (Not that you’re doing that here, but some seem to have written them off as unreasonably stubborn.) I tried to represent them as fairly as possible here. So, do you think I missed any points from either side? —Frungi (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not "arguing vociferously" for anything. My position is that we have policies and guidelines on Wikipedia for a reason, and a local consensus cannot arbitrarily ignore them because of an imaginary implied colon. Perhaps Rob and I are the only editors still defending Wikipedia's position because everyone else got tired of it weeks ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: It’s not an “implied colon.” It doesn’t matter what punctuation, if any, is used to separate a title and subtitle. The question is whether the movie is being marketed as “Title Subtitle”, following the precedence of the movie series up until the 2009 reboot. —Frungi (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: If it has a colon, it is TITLE: SUBTITLE. If it doesn't have a colon, it is TITLE. There's no middle ground. No colon means lowercase "into". -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Wheer's the source for that "there's no middle ground" rule that applies to movie titles in English?  No, really, that was just made up. The opposing view is being held to some impossibly high standard, but let's make up rules for these other views out of thin air. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  21:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it does not &mdash; because creator of a work has the right to title his book, poem or movie anything he wants to. Creative people don't necessarily play by the rules, and that means they can, as in this case, create a middle. You're saying you know better than J.J. Abrams, et al, what the title is. The strikes me as remarkable hubris. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I said marketed as “Title Subtitle”. If a separating colon is indeed mandatory, then the question becomes whether or not we should include a colon, rather than a matter of capitalization. —Frungi (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I find nothing in the MOS about how we should format subtitles. I’d prefer a colon in this case, but if nearly everyone (including well-respected newspapers) writes it as “Title Subtitle” with no separator, then so should we. If it is a subtitle, that is. —Frungi (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this is becoming more a question of how encyclopedic are we trying to be. IMO as an encyclopedia we should be trying to reflect, as accurately as possible, official sources and real-world usage. douts talk) 22:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything douts and Tenebrae have said. Also, with respect Scjessey, your comment that "there is no middle ground" represents the core problem of why this will run and run until JJ Abrams himself comes on here and makes a proclamation. There should be a middle ground - this is stretching on because of an inflexible rigidity and adherence to a flexible style guide that leaves Wikipedia with its metaphorical dick in the wind - no primary and the vast majority of secondary sources render the title the way this article does. This is an encyclopedia. If we don't reflect real world usage, as several users have pointed out is the one of the points of this site, then what the hell is it for? Nsign (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What you don't seem to understand is that even if Abrams himself were to come to Wikipedia and make a proclamation that "into darkness" was meant to be a subtitle, it wouldn't matter. The fact that he/they chose to exclude the colon means that Wikipedia assumes there is no subtitle and the title is styled per MOS:CT. The only acceptable compromise would be the one suggested earlier about putting "stylized as Star Trek Into Darkness" in to the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, what you are suggesting is illogical and bordering on moronic. It means that if evidence is available from official sources that a title is rendered one way, Wikipedia simply ignores it for no other reason than a clause in a guideline says it can do, not because it has to. It assumes something despite the fact it doesn't need to assume it. It makes a mockery of the whole point of Wikipedia - an encyclopedia that reflects and describes real-world stuff. Instead, it makes its own inflexible rules up contrary to what everyone else out there is doing. Can you not see that this is exactly the kind of thing that is meant in the MOS when it says use common sense and not everything will fall under those guidelines? Nsign (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Slipping it in before my suggestion doesn't invalidate the fact that we've digressed back into the initial argument. Please can we either give it a rest or start a completely new section to separate it from the old Move Request? Wikipedia: Boldly going where no MOS has gone before. drewmunn (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, sure. This is a brick wall now anyway. Nsign (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That should be This is a Brick Wall now Anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice :) Nsign (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that, if this conversation is to continue, it's moved to a completely new talk section? We're under the old move request at the moment, and we're polluting a request for more info from the closing admin by continuing the content of the initial dispute. Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would this not be at Star Trek: Into Darkness like every other title of this sort? "Into Darkness" is obviously a subtitle, even set off with different font styling in the poster.  It's no different from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, etc. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  15:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

To address the underlying capitalization rules involved in this discussion, everyone's input here would be welcome. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I really should have mentioned this earlier, but I’ve deliberately left out the argument of “They used the words as part of a sentence in promotional materials” because I feel it’s irrelevant. This proves only that it’s possible to use the words as words, which was never in question, and only “Star Trek” was being used as a title there. —Frungi (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)