Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/Archive 9

Norway's opening Date
Anyone else find it interesting that May 17th is Norway's National Day (like the US's July 4th) and the movie HAPPENS to come out in Norway before any other country? 216.110.25.2 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FINALLY! Something about something other than the title!! :) Anyway, I wasn't aware of that. If we can find some reason why it's important I am sure it can be included. MisterShiney    ✉    17:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However, it's likely that's just a hole the distributors could fill. It happens quite a lot; a seemingly random country gets a blockbuster before anyone else. drewmunn talk 17:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps JJ Abrams feels more people will see it in Norway if it is NOT on their National Day?...I'll look into it with some of my relatives their and also look (I)nto typical Norwegian movie habits on May 17th...maybe they just don't go to the movies that day as much for some reason. That would be a good reason to move the date up to the prior Wednesday.216.110.25.2 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Keith
 * If it opens in Norway before the 17th then the date in the infobox needs to be changed, since we document the date of first exhibition. Betty Logan (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the page is blocked to me for editing (only admins) so I am unable to change it. Perhaps it can say "May 15th (seleted contries), May 17th (international release)?"Dangerkeith3000 (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We list the first release date, so it should only need to say 15th. drewmunn talk 21:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Amended "Title" Section Into Darkness
-- --

:::::::::::::::::::::::::I N T E R M I S S I O N:::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- --


 * E P I S O D E 'V'


 * COMPROMISE NEARS as a SOLUTION ARISES


 * Multiple people contended there were too many citations, now there are ten.
 * One sentence in particular caused opposition, due to alleged WP:SELFREF. (Beware potential WP:COI).
 * Concerns that text was too technical, verbose, and synthesized have been addressed and hopefully corrected.
 * The following text was amended to the Title section of the 'Star Trek Into Darkness' article section on February 5th.

--


 * The film title, Star Trek Into Darkness, is grammatically ambiguous in light of traditional use of the series title Star Trek and raised questions concerning the stylistic intent of the title's authors with respect to possible interpretations of the title's constituent structure and orthography.     Trek can now function as verb, and due to the lack of demarcating colon, Into Darkness may no longer imply a subtitle to the series title Star Trek but instead be part of the phrase Trek Into Darkness.       In regard to prior Star Trek film titles, star Simon Pegg dictated "How do you get past the curse of the ":"? You get rid of it altogether. Trek ain't a noun, it's a verb. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS MAY 2013" Paramount's initial marketing synopsis used Star Trek Into Darkness as a declarative phrase and began: "In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness."  In reference to a webcomic lampooning a lengthy debate over the title's orthography, The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris characterized the situation as "a swirling maelstrom" and recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics, speculating that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title."


 * References: collapsed to save space

--

Justifications

 * Applicable Rules, policies, rules, guidelines, and essays:


 * WP:BEBOLD - Just do it!
 * WP:IAR - If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia.
 * WP:PRINCIPLE - The rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles.
 * WP:COMMON - Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution.
 * WP:BURO - Rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.  A procedural error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it.


 * WP:TOO_LONG! - Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length; see WP:Content removal for acceptable reasons.
 * WP:Content_removal - If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal.
 * WP:Content_removal - If a second editor steps in on one side, and two editors outnumber one, the two can make fewer than three edits each toward a cause, while more than three edits will be required to make the minority cause take place. (Let's NOT start one of these!)
 * WP:SIZE - Consider reader attention span, readability, information saturation. Most articles are very small (under 10k) there is no bandwidth need to exclude material.
 * WP:Abundance and redundancy (essay not rule, policy, or guideline) - It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war.  In many cases edit wars are based on a premise that: "material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article". Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content. (As an essay, consider WP:Abundance and redundancy with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.)


 * WP:PRIMARY - A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.
 * WP:Notability - The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself have have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
 * WP:SUBJECT - If publicity regarding an article is significant, that information would not be included in the article, unless it is relevant to the topic of the article itself. (Kevin Morris' comments in regard to J.J. Abrams' marketing tactics and the debate he caused is relevant to the topic itself. Thus, WP:SUBJECT does not apply and as a criticism is invalid. "The article is explicitly and specifically about Wikipedia" and thus falls foul of WP:SUBJECT is an invalid claim.)
 * WP:UNDUE - Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. It should be easy to name prominent adherents.
 * WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not - Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics databases, Excessive listings of statistics.
 * WP:SELFREF - The belief that "self-references should be avoided" is a Manual of Style guideline not a rule. (The Daily Dot has [|editorial oversight] and is an appropriate source for commentary on J. J. Abrams choice in selecting the film's title.  Desire to obscure the perception that Wikipedia is WP:LAME is not a valid reason in and of itself to remove an otherwise appropriate, neutral, accurate cited contributions. Beware a potential WP:COI.)
 * WP:FANCRUFT - (essay not rule, policy, or guideline) - A term sometimes used to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans. While "fancruft" is often a succinct description, it may be regarded as pejorative and uncivil. (As an essay, consider WP:FANCRUFT with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.)


 * WP:SPA - Many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest [...] here to build an encyclopedia. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. Don't WP:BITE. Think hard before tagging a single-purpose account and make sure you are doing so with good reason. Be courteous.
 * WP:AGF - Editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict.
 * WP:Cooperation - Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.
 * WP:BITE - Newcomers may be hesitant to make changes due to fear of damaging Wikipedia. Teach them to be bold. To a newcomer, the large number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is overwhelming. Ignorance of the rules can often be expected. This is a place where anyone may edit and therefore it is each person's responsibility to edit, rather than to criticize or supervise others.
 * WP:BEBOLD - Just do it!


 * Conclusion: The new paragraph is a brief, Encyclopedic, accurate, well-sourced, relevant, and a neutral overview of the inherent ambiguity in the phrase Star Trek Into Darkness that deftly handles the topic without putting unnecessary emphasis on Wikipedia. It does not violate WP:SUBJECT or WP:UNDUE.  WP:SELFREF is only a suggestion.  You don't need WP:Consensus to WP:BEBOLD, you need WP:Consensus for WP:Content_removal. I repeat, You don't need consensus to make changes, you need it to revert them.  The burden of proof is on those people who want content removed, not the people contributing content. If this practice is flipped, the people doing so completely undermine WP:BEBOLD. Those in favor of removal need to come to a valid WP:Consensus justifying why a sentence needs to be removed.


 * Result: The first five sentences explain the history of the title and the second five respectfully, clearly, and concisely explain why the title is confusing, and the resulting effects caused by the confusion.


 * Note of Caution: I tried as hard as possible to be tactful and respectful with regard to the i|I debate and the feelings of those involved. Users involved in the initial i|I debate are the partial subject of a secondary source used, and could possibly hold a WP:CONFLICT of interest if they propose removing this contribution. I ask any of those users to please tread lightly.  I fully understand this contribution may be controversial because it could shed some negative light on how WP:LAME this place is. That alone does not justify its removal.  If you have a suggestion that can make this contribution better, by all means help and propose better wording.  It goes against everything Wikipedia stands for to revert it, just because you don't want it here or don't personally find it interesting.  Let's not start another war.  An edit war over this contribution would create more bad press than allowing the contribution to stand.  To quote Joshua, one of the smartest computers of all time, "The only winning move is not to play."


 * Final Thoughts: I thank everyone who raised and explained concerns, their voices were taken into considerable account. The users Pfhorrest, douts, Eraserhead1, David93, and Whoosit all shared a sentiment of support for various incarnations of this contribution.  Fletcher did not oppose a brief mention of the title being ambiguous and Frungi contended the topic was interesting. Although opposed, Nsign conceded it is acceptable for an encyclopedia but preferred to obscure the fact that Wikipedia is WP:LAME. Criticism, dialogue, and editing lead to better content.  If I have misrepresented any of these people, they are more than welcome to correct me. I still believe this should have been a contribute first, edit afterwards situation, but gathering everyone's perspectives first helped make sure the contribution was appropriate and hopefully won't launch an edit war.  (WP:REDUNDANT mentions Criticizing instead of editing. No one should have to read through this many pages of rules first to make sure their contribution is appropriate.) Telling users their contribution is WP:UNDUE and not helping to edit it is WP:BITEing.  I hope everyone can take something positive away from the experience. Arguing and blocking content should not take precedent over helping edit it.  The "I'm not going to waste my time helping you rewrite sentences" mindset is not beneficial to Wikipedia, and should be avoided.  I hope my summary of the rules I learned about this week can be helpful in the future when this sort of situation arises. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Summary of Argument

 * Please leave this as its own subsection, so I can link to it, instead of repeating the same thing over and over across the talk page. In the interest of transparency, and due to complaints, I must disclose this was an addendum to my proposal, due to complaints received claiming it was too long.  Please don't debate/discuss in this section, keep it to the discussion sections below. Thanks for your cooperation!


 * My Position: WP:PRINCIPLE The rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. WP:SUBJECT If publicity regarding an article is significant, that information would not be included in the article, unless it is relevant to the topic of the article itself. (Kevin Morris' comments in regard to J.J. Abrams' marketing tactics and the debate he caused is relevant to the topic of the "title". Thus, WP:SUBJECT is an invalid reason to keep the DailyDot source from being used.) WP:Notability - The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself have have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. (The "Wikipedia debate, is notable, because it has been written about by at least 4 authors.) WP:UNDUE It should be easy to name prominent adherents.  WP:TOO_LONG! Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length; see WP:Content removal for acceptable reasons. WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, consider it with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. WP:COMMON Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. WP:PRINCIPLE cannot cover every possible circumstance and sometimes may impede us from improving the encyclopedia. In those cases, we should be bold and do what is best. In the same spirit, the letter of policy will always fall short of completely encompassing the spirit of policy. We should feel free to do whatever is most faithful to the spirit of the policy, whether or not the specific circumstance is spelled out in the policy. WP:SELFREF - The belief that "self-references should be avoided" is a Manual of Style guideline not a rule.  (The Daily Dot has [|editorial oversight] and is an appropriate source for commentary on J. J. Abrams choice in selecting the film's title. Desire to obscure the perception that Wikipedia is WP:LAME is not a valid reason in and of itself to remove an otherwise appropriate, neutral, accurate cited contributions. Beware a potential WP:COI if your conduct [the i|I] debate is the partial topic of a secondary source. If you participated in the i|I and lost, the events may bias your vote.)


 * Analogy: This situation is akin to Bill Clinton preventing his blowjob scandal from appearing in the Bill Clinton, Famous Blowjobs in History and Presidential Impeachment, articles and INSISTING it be moved to Controversies involving Presidents and blowjobs. The idea that this contribution only belongs in Wikipedia in the media article is ABSURD.  See also: WP:Abundance and redundancy.  To repeat, in case I wasn't clear.  WP:SUBJECT If publicity regarding an article is significant, that information would not be included in the article, unless it is relevant to the topic of the article itself. WP:SUBJECT is an invalid reason to keep the DailyDot source from being cited to quote an author's beliefs in regard to JJ Abrams and his choice of title, because the subject is the Title and Wikipedia's reaction. Articles can have multiple subjects. QED!


 * In Short/tldr: the WP:SUBJECT objection should be thoroughly debunked by now (see above), WP:UNDUE is a minor issue, but the page will fill quickly as the release date approaches, so is it REALLY this big of a deal?. It is worth spending thousands of words keeping five sentences you don't like out of an article. WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, and irrelevant. WP:SYNTHESIS needs to be determined, I personally believe I took care of it.  Others need to weigh in on the issue. (sorry this is long.)  Xkcdreader (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

-- -- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : : E N D : : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- --

Discussion

 * Reverted per WP:BRD, WP:WEIGHT and all the other issues previously raised. It's an unnecessary paragraph that focuses too deeply on a trivial matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Content_removal - If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal.
 * I don't need Consensus to be bold and contribute, you need consensus to remove. This is not the previous proposal, and concerns have been addressed.  Restore the text, discuss it on the talk page, and reach consensus.  Scjessey does NOT have consensus to remove the contribution. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, per the above mentioned WP:BRD, edits considered controversial (as you yourself noted, you were bold) may be reverted before discussion. This is what is now happening. As for my opinion, I think the paragraph goes way too in depth for a fairly trivial matter. As I've said before, a sentence at most should cover it, and even that should probably wait a bit. drewmunn talk
 * Indeed. BRD has only one "revert" in the cycle, and that was used by me. Xkcdreader needs to self-revert and then discuss the matter here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I reverted Xkcdreader's revert on the basis of procedure, and I may pop a message on his talk if he doesn't respond here soon. drewmunn talk 13:47


 * "Xkcdreader needs to self-revert and stop wasting everyone's time" you mean? This is beyond a joke now.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * cool cool. Are you willing to work on a compromise until this can get fresh eyes/go to mediation? 5 February 2013 (UTC) Xkcdreader (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No I'm not willing to work on compromise. We already have compromise in the content you inserted previously (before this paragraph). No further compromise is necessary, we are happy with what's there for now. Can I suggest you look at other articles for a while? It would seem more productive; of your 517 edits, I can't find a single one not to do with this article. We are currently at a stage of compromise, and it's unlikely anything further will be added from your suggestion at this time. I'd suggest taking some to improve other articles around Wikipedia; whether it be in the Star Trek, WP:FILM, or any other jurisdiction; sticking with one or two articles is generally not good practice for a newer editor. You'll find out more about how we work, and how your talents as an editor can be utilised. We understand you want to include your content in the article, but it's currently not consensus to do so. You were bold, now it's time to step down for a bit. drewmunn talk 14:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to just close the discussion, considering the issues have already been pointed out to this new and tenacious WP:SPA. It's a waste of everyone's time otherwise.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, what was added to the article wasn't really a compromise. There was unanimous agreement that that paragraph was appropriate.  The disagreement was only over the second paragraph. There is disagreement over whether part two was appropriate, and no consensus was reached.  At all.  "Many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest [...] here to build an encyclopedia.  Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits. Focus on the subject matter, not the person." The five sentences I have just proposed DO need to be discussed by other people besides Scjessey and Rob Sinden.  The other people involved where working towards consensus, not blocking contributions.  This is all laid out above. This should not be closed and strongarmed without more eyes.  Xkcdreader (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll find more eyes. Everyone's bored of this now.  However, consensus was reached.  First half was accepted as a compromise.  Second half rejected due to multiple concerns.  We're not going to compromise the compromise.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The addition I made today has been substantially rewritten to address the issue of synthesis among others. This is a prejudice against me, you are not even reading the amended suggestion. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * STRONG OPPOSE THIS ADDITION. Jesus f*cking christ.  We've just gone over this a million times.  WP:UNDUE, WP:SUBJECT, WP:FANCRUFT, etc., etc., etc., ALL apply.  This is WP:DISRUPTIVE.  We'd made the compromise.  Get over it.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - obviously. I just wanted to make it clear. I think the existing paragraph as it stands right now is more than sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Two users should not be able to hold a page hostage like this. They are the same two people that held it hostage with a lowercase i.  drewmunn has a point I didnt read through all of WP:BRD Xkcdreader (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to go and read WP:SPA as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Look. Your proposal was rejected, you compromised, closed the discussions, THEN decided to re-open the discussion almost immediately. YOU are the one holding the page hostage. You seem to think that if you just repeat the same proposal again and again and again, then you'll get your way.  Just wait, in a minute, you'll claim that our opinions are invalid and that you've already debunked all of our arguments against your proposal.  Worst. Editor. Ever.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the same proposal. It is worded substantially differently than the original one. It went through multiple iterations.  It is apparent to me you have not yet read the post I made. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is clear you are trying to improve the article. That is to be commended. It is clear you are working really hard to do the best job you can. That is to be commended too. But your proposal has been rejected for several reasons and your commendable dedication is now evolving into less-commendable disruption. Please let this go. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No one but the two of you have weighed in on the CONTENT OF THE CONTRIBUTION, since it has been modified to this form. When other people made suggestions they were taken into account and the contribution was rewritten.  You have a clear conflict of interest to suppress this contribution.  You also have no right to close this discussion before it happens. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the discussion was "closed" a bit prematurely and I have reopened it for the time being. But you must end your disruption now. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. :)  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because there is no fundamental change to the content, you've just reworded it a bit. The concerns of WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:SUBJECT, WP:UNDUE, WP:FANCRUFT, all still apply.  And to be honest, who the f*ck wants to read your thesis and summary of all the guidelines of Wikipedia?  HOW is that helpful?  PLEASE...  GIVE IT A REST!!!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason there aren't that many editors around this way any more is because most of them were driven mad by xkcd-gate (have you seen today's comic? I think we should go and discuss it on Talk:Google Maps). Anyway, how about this for a compromise: let this discussion be if you agree to take a back seat for a few days or so. Spend some time looking through other pages, making contributions, and improving your portfolio. Not only would you gain valuable experience of Wikipedia on a larger scale, you'd gain more respect from the editing community. Leave this conversation be, and we'll look at it, and invite some more opinions. We can't close it ourselves, because we're involved editors, so we'll ask along an admin as well, so you have an impartial opinion. Due process will run its course, and nobody will get overly enraged. drewmunn talk 14:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand ill shut up for a while, but if this is how contributing to wikipedia works, Id never try again. Which would probably make a lot of people happy so ... Xkcdreader (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we all work together, then we're quite an amiable bunch! You caught us at the wrong time, and didn't fully understand Wikipedia's processes. Given time, I'm sure you could mature into a better editor, and it's good to facilitate that by editing a wider range or articles. drewmunn talk 15:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very little desire to ever try this again. Still want to see this contribution through.  Agreeing to shut up and not talk about it anymore, as long as appropriate channels handle the content itself and not my behavior Xkcdreader (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of the Actual Contribution

 * No one has yet been allowed to discuss this contribution. Scjessey and Rob Sinden storm in, cause a scene and then close the discussion.  It has happened THREE times now.  This is not appropriate.  The content needs to be analyzed by OTHER PEOPLE besides these two.  It needs to be analyzed sentence by sentence and not thrown out whole.  Scjessey and Rob Sinden do not need to make a single comment here, their opinion has already been voiced sufficiently, and EVERYONE knows exactly what their positions are. I'll agree to sit back if they do too. This proposal would be on its second iteration not fifth if they didn't keep controlling the conversation before it happens. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The content in question follows, and is collapsed to save space


 * The film title, Star Trek Into Darkness, is grammatically ambiguous in light of traditional use of the series title Star Trek and raised questions concerning the stylistic intent of the title's authors with respect to possible interpretations of the title's constituent structure and orthography.
 * In regard to prior Star Trek film titles, star Simon Pegg dictated "How do you get past the curse of the ":"? You get rid of it altogether. Trek ain't a noun, it's a verb. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS MAY 2013"
 * Paramount's initial marketing synopsis used Star Trek Into Darkness as a declarative phrase and began: "In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness."
 * In reference to a webcomic lampooning a lengthy debate over the title's orthography, The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris characterized the situation as "a swirling maelstrom" and recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics, speculating that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title."


 * First off, expect a rather large trout in a second. Secondly, I oppose any such inclusion at this time. That is all. drewmunn talk 14:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We've explained time and again why this is not suitable. I think a note on the admin boards to stop your disruptive behaviour is now in order.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * SMH. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

ENOUGH!!!! FFS. I'm getting sick of this BS. There is nothing wrong the suggested paragraph. Wikipedia is not mentioned anywhere in the text. The fact that a source mentions the debate we had here IS NOT a reason to exlcude that source from use. Thats WP:SUBJECT dealt with. WP:SYNTHESIS: Rob nd Simon have spouted this a few times but have failed to give any reason of what is actually violating it, so rather than acting like a pair of self-righteous jackasses, that might be useful so that something (if needed) can be done about it. As for WP:FANCRUFT NONE of us are in a position to determine what is of importance to others, and since its merely an essay, it's about as relevant as my little toe. Rather than trying to roadblock everything you dont agree with, Rob and Simon need to back the f*ck off and let other people comment. douts (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Calm! That's not so much the issue here at the moment. It's more that it was decided not to include it yesterday, and that was a compromise. On the side, the addition would make it a massive part of the article, and it's a fairly small issue compared to something like the identity of Benedict's character. It is therefore a bit weighty. Anyway, I would play some soothing music, but I don't really own any. So instead, I'll just say that a simple note of support would have sufficed. drewmunn talk 15:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot use the Daily Dot reference, as this is a direct contravention of WP:SUBJECT. And the whole thing is WP:SYNTHESIS - it's been engineered in such a way to make a point from slight mentions in the (dubious) references.  And it really isn't important in the big scheme of things per WP:UNDUE.  And that is without even addressing the borderline WP:FANCRUFT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The WP:UNDUE issue is a minor one, since after the film is released, the article will bulk out much more and that issue will be solved. The Daily Dot reference is being used mainly as the source for the direct quote in the last sentence - which has nothing to do with wikipedia. So in that instance it is perfectly fine - the subject of an article is irrelevant when sourcing a direct quote from someone. douts (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "In reference to a webcomic lampooning a lengthy debate over the title's orthography, The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris characterized the situation as "a swirling maelstrom"..." is a direct reference to Wikipedia (albeit disguised), and therefore is not fine per WP:SUBJECT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, Ok. How about re-phrasing that last sentence to read - In reference to the unusualness of the title phrasing/punctuation DD writer KM suggested that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title" given his habit of "cleverly hiding secret messages" - or something similar and worded better, thus removing any reference to xkcd? Also, as far I can see having re-read the paragraph, only the 2nd sentence could possibly be synthesis, the rest is backed up in the sources. douts (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the proposed paragraph is necessary. What is already in the article is just fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's unnecessary and unencyclopedic. It's making a mountain out of a molehill per WP:UNDUE, and is scraping the bottom of the barrel for references in order to make a point. KM's comment is a speculation as a commentary on his article about the Wikipedia debate, so will always be too self-referential for WP:SUBJECT.  About the only usable bit is the Simon Pegg comment, which is completely trivial and irrelevant.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I give up - trying to discuss something with you 2 and reach a comprise is like trying to teach french to a dog. Never in the 6, nearly 7 years I've been here have I seen anyone assume that adding something to an article will make it worse. You've repeatedly ignored attempts to reach a comprise on a version that can be added (and whilst I acknowledged it might be slightly weighty atm, WP:POTENTIAL stipulates that it should still be added given that the article will bulk up after the release of the film) and you've done all you can to prevent anything that you dont agree with. So do what you will, prevent articles being improved, act like a government censor, I dont give a shit anymore. Until someone puts you 2 back in your box nothing will ever get improved here. douts (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I second every word of what douts has said. I will also give up until something can be done from a higher level.  Ive never seen something like this either.  Can we call the admins to weigh in, or does it need to go through all the proper WP:BURO first?  An encyclopedia that prefers not to have content.  In all my years.  Xkcdreader (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no issue if you want to alert an admin. Your conduct has been incredibly disruptive, so I'm not concerned.  Okay, maybe I lost my temper a little earlier on today, but you did re-open a discussion not 24 hours after apparently agreeing a compromise.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop pretending it was a compromise. There was full consensus that the first paragraph was good enough to include.  There was no consensus for the second paragraph.  The first paragraph was included and the second paragraph is still up for discussion.  You seem to think you closing the debate means there was a compromise. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Claim: Rules are being used to block otherwise valid content. Ironically, ignore all rules is being ignored.  Some in opposition are possibly opposing because a secondary source is a direct result of their conduct.  This is the most basic Conflict of Interest possible.  It's like Clinton blocking anything related to his blowjob.  Scjessey and Rob Sinden should have NO SAY in this matter because the secondary source in question is written about the mess they participated in. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop dictating who can have a say. This issue is dealt with at WP:SUBJECT and is clear.  WP:IAR should only be invoked when it improves Wikipedia and does not divide consensus.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care if the entire internet points at me and laughs because of the part I played in the move debate. I am completely comfortable with my position and I don't care what anyone says. There's no COI. My reasons for rejecting the proposed addition have absolutely zero to do with the move debate. My objections are based on a series of issues that I've already outlined several times. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain to me why you should have a vote in blocking a source referencing your conduct? Xkcdreader (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's not referencing my conduct. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And I have no problem with that material being included in pages about Wikipedia in the media (or whatever it was) as I've already stated. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: This is an issue of what UNDUE weight means. Currently the Star Trek Into Darkness article does not mention the verb issue AT ALL.  Is the most appropriate weight for this subject NONE?  This is an encyclopedia, and we are not going to explain the grammar of a confusing movie title?   Xkcdreader (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're making a mountain out of a molehill. That's what WP:UNDUE is about.  The discussion mostly took place here, not in the world at large.  It doesn't matter in the realms of the film whether it's a verb or not.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Even if there is a very minor WP:SYNTHESIS it should be classic WP:IAR because no misleading claim or theory is being advanced. it is a pure statement of fact. (I think we keep collapsing discussion trees as they happen so this doesn't get completely out of hand.) If synthesis is a serious issue all we have to do is split sentence 2 into two sentences (but this is not preferrable because it adds completely unnecessary verbosity.) Xkcdreader (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - you are fitting the references around the viewpoint, trying to advance it in a certain manner. People have pondered meaning, but it's of no consequence, just speculation - you seem to be trying to make it concrete.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I still think xkcdreader's contribution is fine and the arguments being provided against it look like they are clamoring for anything to throw just to shut down the matter of title-related issues here. While I agree that there's been (way more than) enough of this and everyone should move on as soon as possible, I think the direction to do that in is to let xkcdreader's contribution stand, at least until an uninvolved editor (no canvassing!) objects to it. With regards to the claims made against it: Seriously, I understand that strict policy means xkcdreader was bold, got reverted, and now discussion happens. But discussion has been happening. For way too long. And this is not a big article-destroying thing in question here. I know I would be hesitant to concede to this on an article I WP:OWNed, but can the objectors here just let it slide for a while so all this talk-page thrashing can finally settle down? Let it stand for a week and see if any passers-by object. Or call a 3PO if you want to attract passers-by to give their opinions. Xkcdreader seems like a very diligent editor who is eager to improve the encyclopedia, and I would hate to have you guys scare him off by objecting so vehemently to such a minor thing. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC) The suggested text sits uneasily with the historic principle User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles #6 "The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward, not inward at Wikipedia itself." It is a good principle. Covering our own product (the extended debate) is not what we do. There's room for something, but anything originating from this talk page is not ok in the article. Any reference citing a Wikipedia page is not a worthy reference to support mainspace content, except maybe one of the few pages like Wikipedia in the media. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a small addition in its own low section of an article that is sure to grow quickly (the article that is, not the section) upon the film's release, and so not undue weight.
 * It is as well-sourced and verifiable as one could want. It claims the filmmakers and commentators both have made much ado about the title, sourced to quotes from filmmakers and commentators to that effect. What more can you ask?
 * I don't see the basis for claims of synthesis. The statements made look pretty well-backed by their sources, and any running-together of multiple sources to a single compound sentence is clearly for the sake of brevity (needed to avoid undue weight) and prose, not pushing any claim not evident from the sources.
 * It doesn't discuss Wikipedia itself (though one of many sources mentions it), and so doesn't violate WP:SUBJECT.
 * Lastly WP:FANCRUFT is not policy, is a borderline pejorative acacusation, and speaking as someone with only an idle interest in Star Trek (I've watched it, but would not call myself a Trekkie or Trekker, and I'm only still reading this because I auto-watch every page I edit) and a clean established history on Wikipedia focused on unrelated subjects, I found it encyclopedically interesting that the filmmakers themselves cared about things like the colon and whether 'Trek' was a verb (if it was only outside commentators I would agree that it was much ado about nothing and unencyclopedic).

Locking the page
Might I suggest that an admin lock this article (and maybe this talk page, too, LOL) for a week to give everyone a break? (How has that not happened yet?) -sche (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge Talk Page's arnt generally locked, but the length of some discussion does raise a few eyebrows.... MisterShiney    ✉    19:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, considering the edit warring, so it's done. I was already considering locking the talk page, and if the vitriolic discussions continue, I probably will. Keep it collegial, folks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already warned xkcdreader that he's going beyond passionate to disruptive, so blocking would be another option other than protection. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocking him would be entirely inappropriate. All he's done it try to improve the article. He addressed concerns where they raised and re-wrote the paragraph he was suggesting repeatedly to deal with any valid issues. He even suggesting creating a new article (which SarekOfVulcan (talk)  wrongly rejected imho) for the bulk of the addition so that WP:WEIGHT would not be an issue here. This would have been resolved a while ago had it not been for 2 EXTREMELY over-zealous editors who are seemingly intent on roadblocking anything they personally disagree with. His only flaw was to inadvertently make a bit of a mess of the talk page though nothing than more than inexperience. How the hell do you expect to attract new editors when people are treated the way he has been? douts (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A new article discussing the naming of the film and the Wikipedia coverage thereof would be completely inappropriate per WP:SUBJECT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For god sake, you're obsessed with this fanciful notion that the only place the grammatical ambiguity of the title was discussed was here. IT WASN'T. And that's irrelevant anyway since the article that was rejected was ABOUT the grammatical ambiguity of the title. The wikipedia discussion only lasted as long as it did because you and scjessey insisted on rigidly sticking to a guideline that is supposed to flexible and failed to use a tiny bit of common sense. END OF. douts (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That narrative has been pushed quite enough. The number of !votes in the move request was 17 for "Into" and 11 for "into", and that lack of a clear consensus was why it remained as "into" for as long as it did. So let's dispense with this bullshit that it was 2 people against everyone else. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote. It is the more valid argument.  WP:COMMONNAME is a POLICY and WP:MOS is a GUIDELINE. Guidelines should not have been overruling policy.  The 11 people who voted for into were wrong, plain and simple.  To quote WP:COMMONNAME "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."  Regardless of what the movie was called, the ONLY correct solution was to call it what people call it in the press.  Which was Into.  The debate should have ended after about ten sentences.  Remember, it took admin intervention to implement Wikipedia:COMMON sense.  A group of 11 stubborn people shouldn't be able to prevent anything from ever happening. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Reality check: do any of the sections on this page have a chance of not becoming a new platform for continuing this debate? This is for discussing the possible locking of the page, not for pointing fingers and attacking people's opinions.. drewmunn talk 20:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true, Drew, but we are all here for mainly one reason: to feel important. We believe that editing articles and passing down guidelines and upholding them that we are of value and contributing to the world because in the real world we are all but the background people not doing anything monumental or exciting or even remotely needed. And when our views are questioned, we get hot-headed and passionate and aggressive in order to force those views onto other contributors. And it's not just one or two offenders, it's all of us. That's why so many edit wars and lengthy, stupid discussions occur, because we can never agree. We will never agree. If it's not here. it will be on another article. We may as well accept that. RAP (talk) 20:54 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. - SudoGhost 20:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * -_-. RAP (talk) 21:01 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocking the verbose, poorly-wiki-lawyering, SPA should come well ahead of full protection of a well-participated talkpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. So the guy sees the webcomic and comes here clearly with the intent on trying to improve the article, and you're suggesting he gets blocked for trying to do what we should all be trying to do?? No wonder this place is the fucking laughing stock of the web. Granted he wasnt perfect in his methods, but he's a newbie ffs. I daresay you made some cock ups when you started editing here - I know I did. NOBODY is perfect. GIVE YOUR FUCKING EGO'S A REST! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douts (talk • contribs)
 * When a student, enthusiastic, neither right nor entirely wrong, just keeps talking, doesn't listen, and repeatedly jumps to new angles on the same topic, you should send them away for a week. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ... And "thou should not get involved in cyclic arguments on Wikipedia when a good DVD box set is available" Paul 3:14. I suggest everyone has a nice beverage (alcoholic as necessary), and calms a little more. We're clearly in no state to be arguing this, so let us at least have a ceasefire for a bit. Whether that's a gentlemen's accord, administrator action, or locking of the page, we need time out. drewmunn talk 22:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Time to talk about non-controversial stuff like politics, religion and why Tottenham Hotspur will always be better than Arsenal. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, Man United all the way. RAP (talk) 22:31 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys, Spurs, Arsenal, the mancs, it doesnt matter. Everton are better than the lot of yas! COYB!!! :p douts (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Since we got this paged locked for acting like jackasses, could an admin change "J. J. Abrams had indicated that unlike some of the earlier titles in the film franchise, his second Star Trek would not include a number." to "J. J. Abrams had indicated that unlike some of the earlier films in the franchise, his second Star Trek would not include a number in its title." so it doesn't read as if the movie won't have any numbers in it? Xkcdreader (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No need, it's perfectly obvious in context. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So you would it rather be less clear just to prove a point? There is no reason not to make the sentence more clear. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be fair to block Xkcdreader on the grounds of disruption without first offering him another course of action. The main objection to his proprosals seems to be WP:SUBJECT, so I recommend he starts an RFC to tackle the specific question of whether WP:SUBJECT is applicable here. RFC responders don't want to read an 800k page, nor will they be particularly interested in what the section covers or what he wants it to say, but it is reasonable to ask for an outside opinion as to whether WP:SUBJECT applies to the sources he wishes to use. If it does then he should drop this permanently; if it doesn't then the next step would obviously be dispute resolution. If he agrees to do that, and promises to not drag an RFC into yet another content debate then we can get this page unlocked and move this thing forward. Betty Logan (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The other course of action is to give it a week or two of mulling, and then if he wants, try again more freshly, to a more calm audience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were a content dispute that would be a good approach, but the counter-argument is a policy/guideline based one. If you believe WP:SUBJECT prohibits this group of sources, that should hold true today, next week, next year; it's not a issue that can be resolved through compromise. The whole debate hinges on the interpretation of this guideline, so some outside opinions on its application would hopefully clear that up. If SUBJECT applies the debate is over, if it doesn't then its basically just a content dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the hostility of this WP:SPA, his refusal to listen to advice, and his constant disruption of the talk page, I would now advocate blocking the user. I've just tried to offer an olive branch on his talk page to be met with extreme hostility and an affirmation that only he knows how we should act on a talk page and that discussions should be undertaken in the manner that he sees fit.  He seems to think that WP:IAR means that he can do what the hell he likes.  He needs to be put back in his box for a while. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally, I can't see the justification for the locking of the article page. There was no edit war, and although the discussion has been heated, editors were discussing here on the talk page.  Yes, I've found Xcreader's actions here on the talk page frustrating, but as a new editor, he has to learn how Wikipedia works somehow.  However, there does come a point when you have to realise you're flogging a dead horse and move on!  (And we all need to remember that sometimes.)  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Although, the continued revisionism by a certain editor may persuade me that blocking said editor may be the only course of action to allow this to blow over. And there was me trying to be benevolent!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Is "WP:SPA Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. Don't WP:BITE. Be courteous." no longer applicable? That is an addendum not revisionism. Xkcdreader (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To quickly address this, in as concise a way as possible (could we attempt to keep this conversation in the appropriate Discussion section above?): WP:TOO_LONG! reads Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length and WP:UNDUE says It should be easy to name prominent adherents.. (Kevin Morris has been explicitly named. The Daily Dot is not a blog, they cover web topics, but have full editorial oversight.) WP:SUBJECT reads "If publicity regarding an article is significant, that information would not be included in the article, unless it is relevant to the topic of the article itself." (Kevin Morris' comments in regard to J.J. Abrams' marketing tactics and the debate he caused [even if unintentionally] is relevant to the topic of the "title". Articles can have more than one subject, and in this case the subject of his article is "The Confusing Grammar of Star Trek Into Darkness and the resulting debate.") You can read a longer of my defense here (which as noted above, was amended to the end.)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness#Summary_of_Argument This summary was amended to my original proposal due to the helpful suggestion - "And to be honest, who the f*ck wants to read your thesis and summary of all the guidelines of Wikipedia? HOW is that helpful? PLEASE... GIVE IT A REST!!!" by Rob Sinden. Xkcdreader (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note. I have requested admin intervention here.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Admin intervention should be based around resolving the issue at hand - NOT a clearly blatant attempt to get the guy blocked. For the record, I agree with User:Pfhorrest above. Sums up the rebuttals of the arguments for not adding. I also endorse his suggestion of adding the content, and then waiting for a week or two to see if any uninvolved editors object to said content. douts (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight - You think that content which has failed to gain consensus for inclusion and contravenes numerous guidelines should be included anyway? That's a bit arse-about-face.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Pfhorrest explains in perfectly clear terminology above why said guidelines dont apply in this case. And in any case, if they do contravene any policies that clearly, then you should have no objections to this suggestion since someone who is uninvolved will clearly pick up on them? Right? douts (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And I've stated clearly how they do apply. Your suggestion seems like you're gaming the system to reach your outcome. It's about consensus and there is no consensus to include. Obviously. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Pfhorrest explains why he thinks they don't apply. Regardless of the guidelines or not, no consensus has been reached. We cannot put things in without consensus, unless it falls under WP:BRD, which we've already gone through. Therefore, the inclusion must gain consensus. As this isn't currently happening, and otherwise level-headed editors are becoming more and more feral, please can we take a break‽' This can only end if we allow it to. We're never going to reach a conclusion currently, as everyone's so polar in their opinions, so we're just destroying future attempts at inclusion. Ending now will preserve all of our dignities, and allow us to move forward in an efficient manner. drewmunn talk 12:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Archive a large portion of the talk page
I think it's time to start archiving some of this embarrassment. Anyone agree? RAP (talk) 22:27 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The bot archives stuff automatically after 10 days of inactivity on a thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and we could turn the dial (|algo = old(10d)) at the top of this page a little and make it archive things more quickly, if necessary. -sche (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure all pages have a hard limit of 2 mega bytes in size. Currently this page has 793,969 bytes, so we'd better archive it soon. --  YPN YPN   ✡  03:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, but ~800,000 bytes is nowhere near 2MB. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See the section immediately above this one. -sche (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, at the current rate of growth (~36452 bytes/day), it'll take 35.5 days to fill the page to the 2MB limit, assuming no content is archived (much of it will be shortly). drewmunn talk 12:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't tempt people. I support archiving much of this asap. The last couple of months have been a dark time for Wikipedia and lessons should now be learned. "If there is to be a brave new world then this generation will have the hardest time living in it" - Gorkon, Klingon Chancellor. Nsign (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "It's very cold in space" Khan. And with that, good day to you! :-) Although, I don't think we should manually archive. Maybe lower the bot to 5 days? drewmunn talk 15:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, this is getting ridiculous. I'm on it. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There, much better. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

'Big Game Ad'
So the new trailer was good, wasn't it? Just thought I'd throw that out there. In the meantime, it doesn't help solve the titular issues we've been experiencing. The trailer can be read in one of two ways: "Our world will fall INTO DARKNESS", or "Our world will fall. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS". Again, this adds the to the deliberately vague conclusion I've come to, but there we go. You may now continue whatever it was you were up to. drewmunn talk 08:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The TV spot ran during the "blackout" part of the Super Bowl. It amused me that a few Twitter users started using #SuperBowlintoDarkness (mostly with the lowercase "i"). Maybe we should create a comprehensive, 4-paragraph section on this extraordinary phenomenon - citing every single tweet that used the hashtag!    -- Scjessey (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it might be worth mentioning that the ad aired during the "blackout" phase of the Super Bowl, actually. Certainly the tense of the mention in the article needs to be updated. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I've put in an edit request. drewmunn talk 08:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This talk page
I just saw this. Do we already have it somewhere up there? Sorry, I am too lazy to check for it; but in case anyone else has not seen it until now... --E4024 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Best you don't go there dude. Don't go pressing that button. MisterShiney    ✉    18:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

See the "This talk page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" box at the top of this talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Per above discussion, the information on the 30 second trailer is now out of date. As such, can
 * "It was confirmed on January 29, 2013 that a special 30-second sneak peek will premiere on February 3 during the second quarter of the year's Super Bowl."

be changed to
 * ”A 30-second sneak peek was premiered on February 3 during the blackout phase of the Super Bowl."

Cheers! Also, any chance of reverting back to only unprotected editor blocking? With the exception of one edit-revert-edit cycle (lasting 4 edits), the content of the page has not been affected by the content of the talk page disputes. The editor who partook in that war has now stepped down. drewmunn talk 08:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wondered about this page lock. As I mentioned above: "Personally, I can't see the justification for the locking of the article page. There was no edit war, and although the discussion has been heated, editors were discussing here on the talk page."  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it served a purpose, in that nobody could be over-bold, but that situation has died down now, so it really just impedes us keeping it up to date. drewmunn talk 11:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. FallingGravity (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed
Anyone else think it's worth re-protecting against unconfirmed users? We've had vandals returning since the protection expired. For the record, I'm against complete protection, only suggesting that we may have enough to get unconfirmed protection back in place. drewmunn talk 13:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable.   --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've requested pending changes. Ryan Vesey 13:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, quick question Ryan; what's this in regards to? drewmunn talk 14:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I requested pending changes rather than semi-protection, but it was semi-protected anyways. Ryan Vesey 15:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, just got a bit confused because I saw the protection log before seeing your comment. Ah well, pending changes might be something good for this article when more useful info starts becoming available. drewmunn talk 15:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 28bytes has put it in place! drewmunn talk 14:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
The "See Also" section needs some clean-up. Specifically, the two "Star Trek" headings should be "Star Trek (franchise)", and "Star Trek (2009 film)", respectively and the third simply needs deleted since it never existed in the first place. 24.160.160.209 (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC) ✅. Sort of. I deleted the section. It was just added by an otherwise uninvolved editor, and added nothing to the article. Franchise and previous film links are available in more detail at the bottom of the page. Thanks for pointing this out. drewmunn talk 07:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

-encyclopedic, non-neutral, non third person content
This quote "[…] There’s no word that comes after the colon after Star Trek that’s cool. Not that Star Trek: Insurrection or First Contact aren’t good titles, it’s just that everything that people are turned off about when it comes to Trek is represented by the colon."[60] was re-reverted by USer:The ed17 Now to be fair, I did a horrible job of removing the last half of the quote, but I don't beleve it belongs in this context, it is hard to understand and provides no additonal context or content. Additonaly it is a quote but it is hard to understand and is grammaticaly terrible, I think if the consensus is that it should stay, a more approprate parsing of the quote might be appropreate. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with parsing the quote using brackets ([...]), but removing the quote is wholly inappropriate, given that it directly deals with the problems of coming up with an appropriate title. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried paraphrasing a bit . Please review. —Frungi (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * After spending way too much time reading the archives, I registered to express agreement with The ed17. There was wide consensus that the paragraph was appropriate as is. The paraphrasing has taken what was direct quotes and removed most of the content.  Direct quotes from the author of the movie are "encyclopedic."  I count at least six people who directly approved the content and more who supported prior incarnations.  There is no evidence that the "his favorite title" part was a joke. To claim so is original research, no matter how likely it is to be true.  It is quite possible he was frustrated and truly did prefer that name.  This is all the information we have from the author of the movie, and it should be included. I second Ed's position of "removing the quote is wholly inappropriate" and suggest reverting the section to the agreed upon form shown here (plus the addition of italics to the word Trek, which Frungi added later.) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_Into_Darkness&oldid=539326562 Leaving it in its current state undermines the process that occurred and the agreement which resulted. SufferingSuccotash-err-Savior (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Page protection
I’m confused about the dual protection on this page. Don’t the semi-protection and the Pending Changes protection affect the very same users? I.e. aren’t any permitted changes under this semi-protection “automatically accepted” under Pending Changes? —Frungi (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it was set this way so that when the semi protection expires the pending changes will stick (since it is indefinite) without need of additional administrative action. Crazynast 04:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn’t think to look at the expiration. Never mind, then! —Frungi (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

UK Release
I've just changed the release section in the lede because of new evidence. According to the official source, Germany and Switzerland get it on the 9th, and Simon Pegg has just said on Twitter that the UK also gets in on the 9th. However, the official source states the UK get it on the 10th, so that's conflict. For now, I've removed much of the dating, as it seems to be somewhat wrong in most instances, but could someone clarify whether we should use the official source, and if so, can we reinstate? drewmunn talk 12:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah obviously Paramount's official release list should be used. IMDB and Simon Pegg are not really reliable sources for this type of information. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought so. For now, I've slimmed it right back, but I may look at fitting it all together. Some countries have staggered release, just to confuse us further. drewmunn talk 17:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Found this. Says on the |UK website that it is released 09.05.2013 Charlr6 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

New Poster
As can be seen from the new international trailer, there is a new official poster for the Star Trek into Darkness film. If you carefully look at the background of the below Image, there is a hidden link

Image: http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/star-trek-2-into-darkness-alice-eve-underwear.jpg Hidden Link: bit.ly/WyJV4F

The Hidden Link directs you to the official site, where it leads you to the new Star Trek into Darkness poster. The image link of its full resolution is below.

New Poster: http://www.startrekmovie.com.au/wvn8scv4kdn2glno/images/onesheet.jpg

I just thought it should be the new image, you know? Thanks for reading. --71.238.123.145 (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm personally all for the swap, as the current one is only the teaser poster. If nobody expresses any reasons to not change it, I think we may as well go ahead and put that in. drewmunn talk 15:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Well, I really don't have authorization to override images, so I hope you guys can do that as soon as possible. Oh, another suggestion if you don't mind, could you put under the "Marketing" section that an international trailer was released on March 21, 2013? Thank you for considering my suggestions. --71.238.123.145 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'll add that in in just a second. Why don't you consider making an account, that way you could track articles, edit certain articles you currently can't, and become a face in our community? drewmunn talk 16:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Based on "The Enemy Within" episode?
For those editors who will be chomping at the bit to write the upcoming fuller plot section in the article, well, it seems Simon Pegg has let loose a major clue (accurate or diversionary?) that seems to suggest the Harrison character could be the result of a transporter split up with good and evil versions, thus supplying the necessary drama, just like happened to Kirk in the original series episode The Enemy Within: "It's been fun seeing people trying to figure out who he is playing and all the time it just being a very simple answer. John Harrison is indicative of a thing going on in society today, which is the enemy within," says Pegg. "Not . . . a multihorned alien or another country or whatever. It's the idea that the threat can be one of us and can come from inside. Benedict's character is interesting and complex because he is, at once, an enemy and an ally, and is always manipulating the situation, that he's in, even to the point of manipulating Kirk and us. He is brilliantly Mahiavellian."

- Star Trek Collector's Edition: Into Darkness, page 6, AVI Specials, magazine format, March 2013

See http://trekmovie.com/2013/03/26/simon-pegg-on-different-scotty-and-john-harrison-speculation-in-star-trek-into-darkness/ Seems like a pretty clear clue. Maybe he thought or was assured the interview would be published after the movie's release. I think I'm going to call it. That's the plot of the movie. 5Q5 (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Everyhing you've said is completely OR and speculation. We can't put things in that you've 'called'. drewmunn talk 14:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Or you're reading too much into it. "Enemy within" is a common phrase and it doesn't have to be literally referring to the episode. In fact, the "enemy within" motiff has been hinted at through marketing. DonQuixote (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah. It's pure speculation. MisterShiney    ✉    16:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Just saying, for those who will be writing the fuller plot, besides having Kahn and Mitchell preloaded in your mental notes, add transporter mishap. Curiously, The Enemy Within was the fifth episode in the original series and 2009/2010/2011/2012/2013 = 5 years. 5Q5 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading way too far into this. When someone gets around to writing up the plot, they'll be doing it without predjudice; we can only document information given directly to us, not link possible themes or clues to reach our own conclusions. drewmunn talk 14:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

New Poster 2
I know this is probably being really picky, but should the alt for the new poster name the ship as the Enterprise? There is nowhere that I can find explicitly stating it to be. It's general assumption, but do we have anything solid enough to physically state that? drewmunn talk 18:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd leave it off. Better to stick with what's explicit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made that change then. If there's any backlash, we can deal with it then. drewmunn talk 21:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good Lord... Why not go the next step and say that it's only a model, or only an artist's rendering of a make-believe ship?  What other ship could it possibly be, given what is shown in the previews?  This is taking Wikipedia standards to a ridiculous level, like visiting the page on Air and saying that it needs references... DeeJaye6 (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of choice of release dates
Just wondering if anybody has seen a RS that discusses the choice of release dates for Into Darkness? It would be helpful if the article included an explanation as to why the film is set to be released in the US later than it is in Australia. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure about Australia, but here is something about its international release in general. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The 2009 film performed well in North America but poorly elsewhere. In an attempt to maximise foreign grosses, Paramount are staggering the release dates for ST:ID. This New York Times article goes into more detail. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the source of the plot??
The film has not been released as of yet, which prevents the editorship to work collaboratively on the plot summary. Even more important than that, its a enermous copyvio. It's gone until opening day.. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it a copyvio? Doesn't it have to have been copied from somewhere else first? Whilst I do agree that if it has not been released officially then it prevents other editors from colaberating, but where does it say we don't have plot summaries till opening day? MisterShiney    ✉    00:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The film had its Australia premiere the other day so I don't know if that's enough; I do know that spoilers are permitted so the question would seem to be is the Australia premiere enough to post the plot. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I cited the premiere in the article as well. The film premiered on April 23 according to this citation, so I think that the addition of the plot summary is necessary at the moment. We had a similar case about this at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film) before the film's US release, as well as Skyfall. Per WP:FILMPLOT, as a plot summary, the film itself is a source after all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Full-protected for three days while this is sorted out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries are based upon the consensus version of the plot points; how is that at all possible when the film hasn't seen general release? Granted, it might indeed be the plot (in which case, some film reviewer in Australia has forever fucked themselves out of future press tickets by posting plot points - a basic prohibition in film reviewing), but then again, it could be some elaborate hoax by some fans (or anti-fans). In either case, we cannot post the plot until general release, as it interferes with the film studio's right to make money. Why see the film when they can just read the plot here? It opens WP to some rather unpleasant legal consequences that we should avoid.
 * I feel pretty strongly about this, and think that we might have to initiate an RfC or bring in some admins on this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "we cannot post the plot until general release, as it interferes with the film studio's right to make money." That's irrelevant. The only thing which could make this copyvio is if it has been posted elsewhere. What you really should be concerned about is whether there are reliable sources (including the film itself per WP:WAF, which apparently it has been released in Australia) which confirm the basic plot points. If that is the case, then there is absolutely no reason we should not cover the plot per WP:SPOILERS. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced of the "irrelevant" nature of screwing a filmmaker out of their right to profit from their work, but I'll set that aside for a moment. Additionally, I'm going to dismiss any argument abut spoilers, as that's a red herring. The main point is - and its odd that you would miss it - is that the plot summary is a community-based, agreed-upon version of transpired events in the film. We do not have that here. An exceedingly small group of people saw the film in Australia, and as far as I can tell, there is no RS review that details the plot in nearly as much detail as was edited into the article. Which, of course, there wouldn't be, as per the caveats I noted in the earlier post. So, this isn't about reliable sources either. If the editorship doesn't have the opportunity to see the film, they cannot very well contribute to the plot summary, can they? And on a more basic level, what the hell is the rush? I am growing ever more impatient with editors that treat Wikipedia like some forum site where speed is of the essence. IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO BE FAST IN WIKIPEDIA. Slow the hell down and wait for general release. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "The main point is - and its odd that you would miss it - is that the plot summary is a community-based, agreed-upon version of transpired events in the film." Just as wrong and just as irrelevant. A plot summary is no different from any other part of an article in that it must be sourced (usually to the film but it could be sourced to another item). That's the only criterion to write about it. It is again irrelevant whether the majority of the "editorship" has seen it. As for the rush, you're the only person who perceives it that way. Wikipedia moves at the speed it moves, whether that's slow or fast, and the only time we really need to control that speed is in the case of BLPs, which given we're talking about a plot summary&mdash;inherently fiction&mdash;does not apply here. Really, you would have a good argument if you could show that the plot as posted is wrong, but you have been unable to and seem undesiring of doing so. "I'm not convinced of the "irrelevant" nature of screwing a filmmaker out of their right to profit from their work, but I'll set that aside for a moment." I am. Wikipedia doesn't care in any regard for the actual topic or topic"maker" of the article (unless WP:BLP comes into play; again, irrelevant here). This is true whether we're talking about a company who has negative criticism or a book that was released yesterday or a news event that happened today. What we care about is verifiable, reliably sourced, appropriately weighted, encyclopedic, free content. That's it. Now, you might also argue, based on what I just said, that the plot as posted fails one or multiple of those items. You haven't, and apparently do not want to. Would you like to do so, or would you like to continue arguing from incorrect notions of what Wikipedia should care about? --Izno (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've notified WT:FILM about this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you did, did you? :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep.We may need more uninvolved editors to get involved and comment on the situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries in film articles are implicitly cited barring unusual circumstances (like the film being lost). We can easily add citation tags that state the film title, the director, the studio, etc. All that is readily available in the infobox, though, so we are not compelled to do that. To warrant referencing the film as a primary source, it must be accessible to the public in some form, such as being available in theaters or on home media. I think that a limited screening is not an event that opens the matter to verifiability, which means that "people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". This being the case, it is not appropriate to rely on a firsthand account when it cannot be checked by others. However, if early reviews write about the plot in more detail than what the official synopsis says, we can reference these for the plot summary. When the film is available to the public, we do not need to rely on such reviews and can shape the summary accordingly. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "To warrant referencing the film as a primary source, it must be accessible to the public in some form, such as being available in theaters or on home media." So what do you say about a film that was in theaters, but no longer is and has yet to be released in any home media? Is that film's plot no longer verifiable and so that plot summary should be removed? 99.192.64.5 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It "was in theaters". Therefore it was verifiable from the time it was in theaters. This was in a couple theaters seen by a few hundred at most.  Unless they are all on WP editing, it can't be verified until the general release. Anyone could quite easily lie and make up a plot; given the small audience, we have no way of knowing if it is correct until the wide release. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * STID was also "in theaters. Two theaters for two showings so far, and more to come. The people who saw it can verify the plot, just like for any other film that was in theaters. "We have no way of knowing if it is correct until the wide release." So does that mean that a film that has only been given a limited release in a hundred cities is not verifiable? But if 100 cities is enough and 2 is not, what is the magic number that is good enough? 99.192.64.5 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not "in theaters", it was in two theaters and not for its general release. Unless a large number of those few hundred who saw it come here to work on the plot summary, it can't be verified.  TV shows are seen by anywhere from several hundred thousand to millions. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Family Viewing is a film that was released in 1987. As of July 2012, the plot summary on the Wikipedia page for the film was just a single short paragraph. In August 2012 I saw the film and then wrote a long plot summary for the Wikipedia page. There have never - before or since - been a large number of people who came to that page to work on the summary. It was only me. Now, does that mean that my plot summary is invalid? I would think not. The fact that I was the only person in the history of Wikipedia to take enough of an interest in that film to write a detailed plot summary does not make it wrong or unverifiable. It only takes one person who has seen the film to write an accurate summary. 99.192.64.5 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hah, that's actually a good question. I'm not sure if I have a good answer for that, but I think such a scenario is exceedingly rare. First of all, it would necessitate a dispute over details in the plot summary during that time period. The more mainstream a film is, the more likely there would be attention to its article and its plot summary. However, this is offset by the nature of a mainstream film having a very narrow time period between the end of the film's theatrical run and its availability on home media. (There's also video on demand to consider...) Basically, the likelihood of such a scenario is negligible, and we could probably refer to film reviews for clarification about certain details since a lot of them recap the story. If that fails, we could just keep the plot summary from before the end of a run until it becomes available in other media. At worst, we could just use such reviews to put together a new summary (however incomplete) during that time period of not being available to the public. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, but what about a film that is not "mainstream"? Those films have articles with plot summaries, too, and so the issue could be more real for them. In addition, you say, "First of all, it would necessitate a dispute over details in the plot summary during that time period." Doesn't that mean that the plot summary posted here for STID is not a problem unless some other editor comes along and says "I also saw the film and that summary is wrong"? In the absence of an dispute over the Australian summary's content, it would seem it should stand. 99.192.64.5 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In my experience, the threshold for verifiability is when a film is available to the general public. This means that screenings like those at festivals do not meet that threshold. A film in limited release meets that threshold because while it is not everywhere, it is at least available to the public. A person can go "anytime" to see the film and confirm the summary, much like a person can go to the Library of Congress "anytime" or buy an expensive book "anytime" to verify a citation. With a special screening, we can't do that. The time period I mentioned before is miniscule and not comparable to the screening-to-theatrical-run period you mention because circulation has been experienced. These are not hard-and-fast rules, of course; common sense should prevail. Plot summaries are supposed to exist in service of the real-world context provided in a Wikipedia article, so I do not think providing a full one upfront, before the film is available to the public, is of pressing importance. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your distinction between a festival / premiere showing and one that is open to the "public". I have attended lots of films at film festivals. You just show up and buy a ticket. Anyone is allowed to come. And often at festivals a film has more than one showing. Surely that counts as being available to the public. I have also attended a couple of premieres where also it was simply a matter of buying a ticket before they sold out. The shows were just as open to the public as any film showing is.


 * "A film in limited release meets that threshold because while it is not everywhere, it is at least available to the public. A person can go "anytime" to see the film and confirm the summary" I'm not trying to be a prick about this (although it might sound like it), but that's not true. If the film is in limited release and the shows are only at 7pm and 9pm, then there will be a lot of times that the film is not accessible to anyone. You have to wait for the next showing if you want to check the film to see if the Wikipedia summary is accurate. The same is true right now for STID. You just have to wait for the next showing of the film, and then you can go check. It's playing every couple of days right now, if you are in the right city. 99.192.64.5 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I was under the impression that festival screenings were not often repeated (within that festival's schedule, I mean). I've really only focused on when a film premieres at a film festival and cannot recall anything about repeated screenings other than a screening exclusive to the press and a screening open to the public. Would it depend on the festival, perhaps? What is the current screening status for this film? I see that it premiered in Australia but am not clear what you mean about it screening every couple of days. Is it a festival setup or just sneak previews? In any case, while you make a good point, I do agree with Jack above when he says that it is not important to be fast on Wikipedia. This topic has a place here forever, and the film by its blockbuster nature will be available forever. So I think we can afford to wait. Still, I think you make an interesting point about what the threshold should be, and maybe we can hammer out something specific at WT:FILM or deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "I was under the impression that festival screenings were not often repeated." I guess that depends on the film and the festival. Ones I have been to have had repeat showings for films I have been interested in seeing.


 * "What is the current screening status for this film? I see that it premiered in Australia but am not clear what you mean about it screening every couple of days." It had its Australian premiere last Tuesday. Then it had its Moscow premiere on Thursday. There are a few other similar premiere events around the world over the next couple of weeks before it opens wide.


 * "I do agree with Jack above when he says that it is not important to be fast on Wikipedia." I agree 100%, and have argued the same thing on other talk pages (like when people go crazy about real time reporting of awards show results). It does not really matter to to me when the plot summary for this film is posted. But the general issue of how much input is needed or how "available" a film has to be to allow for a plot summary does matter to me, especially since I do care about articles for more obscure and less widely available films (see my comments about Family Viewing above).


 * "maybe we can hammer out something specific at WT:FILM or deal with it on a case-by-case basis." I agree again. Actually, I first replied to this topic over there hoping to keep my part of the discussion on WT:FILM, but that didn't happen :-) 99.192.64.5 (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with some above that commercial interests aren't an issue here, but simple verifiability is. I would suggest reverting the plot summary to an instance before the addition of the full plot and wait until a general release of the film so that it can be confirmed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, wait a bit until there are multiple high quality sources to support a detailed plot in the article. Movies can be changed after a world premiere. Paranormal Activity had its ending changed after a festival premiere and before general distribution. Credits can change. I read the purported plot in the history log and, oh my god, some of it jumps the shark for me: Chekov named Chief Engineer, Spock Prime says Khan is the greatest enemy the Enterprise has ever known (ever hear of the Borg, Spock?). It's no wonder why people in Egypt, Taiwan, Peru, and elsewhere can see it in theaters before home fans in the U.S. The studio wants to make as much money as possible before the bad reviews start coming in. I heard a rumor Lex Luthor makes a cameo (kidding). If the plot in the history log looks accurate, then it looks like a good starting point. 5Q5 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no need to wait. Premiers aren't internal screenings or test screenings seen by only a handful of people.  Hundreds of people attend these things and there are NEVER non-disclosure forms handed out.  For a big budget movie like this, word of mouth is going to get out, and there won't be any major changes after the premiere (The Paranormal Activity comparison doesn't work because that didn't have a distributor when it was screened at the festival).  Just because it hasn't been released to the general public doesn't mean it hasn't been seen by Wikipedia editors.  See WP:GF Redredryder (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 *  Plenty of reviews out there now.  Having posted the comment preceding yours, it is the next day, so I did a search on news.google.com for "Star Trek Into Darkness" review and in my opinion it looks like there are sufficiient high quality sources now (Hollywood Reporter, Daily Mail, etc.) to support inclusion of a fuller plot. If some editor wants to source a plot I would say go for it. UPDATE: On the other hand, I should have read those reviews before posting this. Now that I have, they are pretty much flimsy on plot specifics as the reviewers don't want to upset fans, so I don't know what to tell you. I'll bow out of this discussion now. I will say that the reviews do seem to support the detailed plot in the History log. Good luck. 5Q5 (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of people among 7 billion is a handful. The initial two showings were not open to the general public; the issue here is verifiability(we can't verify something that only one person on WP is writing about based on their observations). 331dot (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So only things released to the general public and understood by the entirety of Earth's population can be added to wikipedia? Don't be ridiculous.  Just because YOU can't verify the plot doesn't mean there aren't other editors out there that can.  The plot added earlier was perfectly fine.  Why should we assume it was wrong? Redredryder (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about assuming whether it's right or wrong; it's about the ability to verify the source of the material, just as with anything else. In most cases, that can be done by reading the book, website, or news source of some information. In this case, the source is the movie itself; one cannot view the film if it is not available to the general public.  It doesn't have to be "understood by the entirety of Earth's population", but it needs to be available to more than a few hundred people.  This will be moot soon anyway, though. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that it has already had multiple screenings makes it verifiable. Yes, access to get into the premieres is difficult, but per WP:SOURCEACCESS that is not Wikipedia's problem.  Members of the public have been able to see the film and per WP:GOODFAITH you have to assume the plot posted earlier was written in good faith.  Again, just because you can't verify the plot, doesn't mean others can't.  Redredryder (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a source of the plot:

Ain't It Cool News and another: The Telegraph (UK) Japanscot (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, calm the heck down, Redredryder. It isn't about assuming good faith, tho' I can see how you'd get there. We don't know that the plot is real or not. The only way to be able to write the plot summary is to have the plot actually available to the editorship. Without it, we are relying on a small group of editors to tell us what they think happened in the film. Every single experienced editor in Wikipedia can list off the number of times when someone saw something in a movie and added it to the plot summary when it was just simply wrong. We are not in a hurry in Wikipedia, and that is a very hard concept for a lot of new editors to wrap their hot-holders around. This isn't a fan forum or somesuch where there are bonus points for being the first one to post a spoiler or fact. If anything, we post AFTER the information is pretty much been talked to death elsewhere - so much better to draw quotes from, after all. This is not King of the Hill. If the assumption of good faith enters into it at all, it would be that aspect which accepts that going slowly is the better course for an encyclopedia, where we are supposed to make every effort that our info is accurate and verified before we hit the 'enter. key. Trusting your fellow editor to will help you craft a plot summary that reflects a consensus view is at the very heart of AGF. Insisting that the rest of us can go take a flying leap bc a spoiler site decided to post the entire plot is counter-productive. We are in no hurry. We wait until we have a large enough pool of contributors to craft a consensus-based plot summary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "We wait until we have a large enough pool of contributors to craft a consensus-based plot summary." There not only is no Wikipedia policy that says this, it is actually contrary to Wikipedia policy. As I have mentioned (twice) above, I and I alone wrote the plot summary for the film Family Viewing. The reason for that is that there have never been other editors willing to contribute to writing it. So if we were required to, as you say, wait until we have a large enough pool of contributors to craft a consensus-based plot summary for that film, then it would still have no posted summary. But Wikipedia policy supports my summary being kept. If someone who sees the film comes along later and thinks I got something wrong or left something important out, the summary could change. But that does not invalidate my summary being posted now. Same goes here. If the few editors who have seen the film post a summary and then later others who have seen the film think they got something wrong or something important was left out, they can change it then. That's why all articles with plot summaries are open for revision in perpetuity. No posted summary is ever the final word.


 * Now you might say "yeah, but it's different for smaller films like that" and I agree that it is different, but not insofar as Wikipedia policy on posting plot summaries is concerned. No policy says that any more than one editor has to have actually see a film for it to be valid for a summary to be added. No policy says that a summary needs multiple editors working in collaboration for a summary to be valid. Wikipedia policy entirely supports a plot summary being posted even if only one editor - like me in the case of Family Viewing - has seen the film and writes a summary. AGF means you don't remove that summary unless you have reason based on a reliable source to believe that the summary is not correct. 99.192.54.88 (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.64.5)
 * Something can be posted in good faith and still be inaccurate or wrong. Were you taking notes during the film, or is your summary from memory?  We don't know if it's correct or not because the only reliable source is the film itself.  Why the rush? 331dot (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Something can be posted in good faith and still be inaccurate or wrong." Yes, it can. That is true of any information posted on any Wikipedia page, so making that observation is not a reason to withhold adding content, because if it were a reason then nothing would ever be added. "Were you taking notes during the film, or is your summary from memory?" Are you asking about my summary for Family Viewing? If you are questioning the accuracy of that summary, please do so at the talk page there. But if you are asking a general rhetorical question about plot summaries, I would point out that we never know who is taking notes and who is working from memory on any plot summary. But that is no reason to object to a summary that has been posted for any film. AGF means that you assume that the person adding it has seen the film and got it right unless you have a specific reason to think otherwise. "Why the rush?" I didn't say there was a rush. That is not what I have argued. In fact, I have (several times now) pointed out that I think the idea that it is important to be quick is silly. But saying that there is no rush is, once again, not an argument that adding the plot now is not supported by Wikipedia policies. So that question missed the point entirely. 99.192.54.88 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can. That is true of any information posted on any Wikipedia page, so making that observation is not a reason to withhold adding content, because if it were a reason then nothing would ever be added. Having information that cannot be verified can be a reason.  A movie not released or even available to the general public cannot be verified.  I reviewed the SOURCEACCESS text; this isn't something that is merely difficult to get(such as purchasing a book or access to a website, or going to the one library in the world that has the material) it's impossible to get, as the film is not even available in a limited fashion after the two screenings.  I don't know if the plot is right or not.  It might be, but who knows. saying that there is no rush is, once again, not an argument that adding the plot now is not supported by Wikipedia policies. Perhaps not, but it is an argument to take our time to get it right. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Having information that cannot be verified can be a reason." Yes, it can. But this is a very different claim from the one you made previously. On this point, I refer you to the discussion on WT:FILM. The plot to STID is verifiable by Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability. And there have been more than two screenings so far. "I don't know if the plot is right or not." That is not a reason to withhold the plot summary. It is not required that you know if it is right for it to be posted. "It might be, but who knows." As with any film, the people who have seen it are in a position to know. People have seen this film. They know. "...it is an argument to take our time to get it right." I have no objection to Wikipedia editors voluntarily deciding that even though they have seen the film and know the plot that they want to wait for more input from others to be sure that it is right. I do object to some Wikipedia editors telling other Wikipedia editors that they are not allowed to post a plot to a film until everyone sees the film. The latter is a violation of Wikipedia policy. 99.192.54.88 (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Err, which policy would that be? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do object to some Wikipedia editors telling other Wikipedia editors that they are not allowed to post a plot to a film until everyone sees the film. I don't want to wait until "everyone has seen the film", I want to wait until everyone can see the film to be able to verify its content, just as if they had to wait for the opportunity to read a book in a library. That is not the case with limited screenings not open to the public.   That is not a reason to withhold the plot summary. Certainly not; that's not what I'm saying.  People have seen this film. They know.  People have made it, too, and they know.  Yet the summary wasn't posted from the moment the script was completed.  It's a film, meant to be seen by the general public in the theaters and later at home. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor Jack Sebastian above asked what policy it is that is supposed to discourage editors from telling other editors or the community at large what they can and can't do. Respectfully, WP:BULLY, WP:NOEDIT. The studio does not decide what goes into this film article, per WP:NOTADVERTISING, so waiting for official confirmation of the plot is not standard and we/you new and regular editors decide when it's ready to edit something controversial by WP:CONSENSUS, which is what we are doing on this talk page. Peace. 5Q5 (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe its just me, but I take exception to someone who accuses me of bullying them and ordering them around and then ending their message on the pretense of 'peace.' Frankly, it's a passive-agressive, bullshit tactic that makes me want to dispense with Good Faith altogether and ignore their silly ass. Be advised, 5Q5: that nonsese will not play with me, so the next time you do it, I am simply going to point at you, laugh and ridicule you. I cannot make it any clear than that, short of a trout-slap or using hand-puppets.
 * Furthermore, you are flat-out wrong in your interpretation of why we don't post plot summaries. I will list them numerically, since you seemingly have some difficulty following along unless someone prefaces their comments with either bold text or allcaps:
 * 1. Plot summaries are not cited because they rely on the editors being able to agree as to a consensus view of what the plot is.
 * 2. The film has not seen wide release, and is in fact not officially released as of yet.
 * 3. Ergo, a large number of editors are not able to see the film to contribute to the consensus view of the plot summary.
 * 4. Additionally, they cannot verify that the plot being offered by an extremely small number of editors, likely citing a bloggy fansite is accurate. AGF is immaterial, as the plot is the plot. It is either accurate or not.
 * 5. Therefore, we post scant details until the film is in general release, allowing everyone to contribute to the consensus.
 * I hope that squares the matter away for you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "1. Plot summaries are not cited because they rely on the editors being able to agree as to a consensus view of what the plot is." Not true. They are not cited when the film itself is being used as a primary source. That includes plot summaries that were written by just one person alone (as with the case I mentioned several times before of the plot summary for Family Viewing).
 * "2. The film has not seen wide release...." Irrelevant. Lots of films never receive wide release or are narrowly released prior to going in wide release, but in both types of cases the film can serve as a primary source for a plot summary. "...and is in fact not officially released as of yet." That's not what the page says. It gives a release date of April 23, 2013.
 * "3. Ergo, a large number of editors are not able to see the film to contribute to the consensus view of the plot summary." Irrelevant. If a film has only been released, for example, in just one country, then a large number of editors are not able to see it. But that is not a reason to object to a plot summary being posted.
 * "4. Additionally, they cannot verify that the plot being offered by an extremely small number of editors, likely citing a bloggy fansite is accurate."  Irrelevant. Wikipedia's policy on accessibility allows for a source to be difficult to access and for access to be limited. That a large number of editors cannot verify what a small number of editors can is neither here nor there so far as policy is concerned. "AGF is immaterial...." No, it is vital. AGF means that those who have not seen the film - for any film - have to assume that people posting a plot summary have seen it and are posting an accurate summary unless they have a specific reason to doubt that summary. This is central to AGF. So when you say "likely citing a bloggy fansite" without evidence, you have failed to assume good faith.
 * "5. Therefore, we post scant details until the film is in general release, allowing everyone to contribute to the consensus." See my above comments. Some films never get a "general" release and lots of plot summaries on articles are written by just one person, not a team working together. This is all perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia policy. 99.192.48.126 (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.54.88 )


 * I did not say that we needed to wait for official confirmation of the plot, it has been suggested that we wait until the film is actually released to post the plot, for verifiability purposes. I do not appreciate being told that I or others are bullying the other side or forbidding them to do anything; I and others are not doing this any more than the other side is doing it to us. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeat after me, It's only a movie . . . It's only a movie . . . 5Q5 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeat after me: either play well with others or find somewhere else to play. Insulting editors who disagree with you is a sure recipe to get yourself marginalized as either a dick and/or a troll. I know this is coming across as harsh, but you are attacking others for disagreeing with you, and that's just uncool. Keep it congenial, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the film itself is being used as a primary source, and when several people agree on what the primary source indicates, you have a more durable plot summary and article. In the film stub example you provide (hint: in the future, refer instead to an FA or GA exemplar instead), the plot summary is overlong, and all it would take to destabilize the article is one person disagreeing with the length, pacing or content of the plot summary; I haven't seen this late 80's Canadian romp of musical chairs, but even I can see where the summary is more complicated than is necessary.
 * Secondly, when we refer to a film being 'in wide release', it is synonymous with 'in general release', meaning that it is available to the viewing public. It isn't about how many asses are in the seats, but rather that those seats are available for those asses.
 * Regarding your third reply, I should point out that we've gone over this before, and your contention remains massively incorrect. A feature film (which is different from your film stub example) by definition is open to a much larger audience. Therefore, there is a wider view of opinion as what the plot was. If you consider the idea of community editing to be irrelevant, you might want to reconsider if editing within Wikipedia is your cup of tea. The plot summary requires more than a single point of view. Ask around. That's just the way it is.
 * For example, your contention that we are allowed to describe a primary source when that source is difficult to view is just plain wrong. When a source is hard to access, you cite it. Furthermore, your reasoning is unsound, as the film doesn't meet the criteria from which you defend your crumbling arguments: the film is not hard to access. It will be out in less than a week, so what you appear to instead be talking about is a desire to "scoop" the plot and rush the matter. And your comments about AGF are immaterial: the plot was largely lifted from a single source, in some cases using the same language. AGF is important, but it isn't a set of blinders.
 * So, my suggestion to you is that you should simply wait until a film explicitly scheduled for mass release is actually released. I understand that some of our policies and guidelines may seem difficult to follow or understand, and perhaps even see them as contradictory, but they are what they are. If you wish to see them change, here is a good place to start the process of change. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To the editor Jack Sebastian, sir, I am sorry if you have misinterpreted what seems to be a simple and helpful general reply to the question you asked about policy that I posted at 13:05, 5 May 2013, but I have not accused any specific editor on this page of bullying, nor have I posted any insult directed at any specific editor. I think it needs to be noted, however, and I see another editor has discovered it as well, that you are engaging in refactoring of this talk page without telling everyone. You inserted your post in this section at 19:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC) above others who had already commented, as seen at the bottom here before and then here after your insertion above 331dot (note the out-of-sequence time codes). Also, please be more civil per WP:VULGAR, WP:PERSONAL, WP:APR, WP:DISRUPT. Are there any admins monitoring this page? In 11 days when the film is released widely this plot discussion will be moot. Detailed plots have already been published on foreign language versions of the article. I say again, peace. 5Q5 (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)