Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Proposed "Title" Section: Take Two

The previous suggestion went through considerable change as it was discussed. In the process it outgrew the appropriate length. Everyone seems to agree that even if it is appropriate for wikipedia, it was no longer appropriate for the page in its current form.

Main article: Grammatical and orthographical interpretations of the movie title Star Trek Into Darkness

• On September 10th, 2012, Paramount confirmed the film's title as Star Trek Into Darkness. J. J. Abrams indicated that unlike the The Original Series films and yet in line with The Next Generation film series, his second Star Trek film would not include a number in the title. The decision was made to avoid repeating the sequel numbering that started with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan or making a confusing jump from Star Trek to Star Trek 12. Writer and producer Damon Lindelof addressed the team's struggle to settle upon a title, stating "there have been more conversations about what we're going to call it than went into actually shooting it." "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." Of the email chain co-writers kept containing every potential title, including many joke titles, Lindelof preferred Star Trek: Transformers 4 best "because it's technically available."
• The title's grammatical ambiguity and lack of colon caused several months of discussions concerning the stylistic intent of the title's authors along with examinations of various possible grammatical interpretations of the title's orthography and constituent structure. People questioned if "Trek was now a verb," and consequently, if Into Darkness was no longer an implied subtitle to the series title Star Trek but instead part of the noun phrase Trek Into Darkness. Compounding the ambiguity was Paramount's unprecedented use of the movie title as a declarative phrase in its initial marketing synopsis which began: In Summer 2012, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thrill that takes Star Trek Into Darkness. On the issue of the movie title's constituent structure, 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" The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate over the title's semantic interpretation spanned months and had become "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention from which no common sense can escape." Morris recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title."

I personally believe the previous text is encyclopedic, well sourced, accurate, neutral, brief, relevant, bizarre, lighthearted, and of interest to the casual reader. I firmly attest that a random person could pick up this paragraph and fully understand the information being conveyed without requiring additional context and without being bombarded by irrelevant information It stays on topic of the movie title and resulting confusion regarding its lexical interpretation. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

References

I removed the following two lines because they appear to be too controversial to reach consensus, even though I believe they add context and insight to the paragraph.

• The verbosity of a debate revolving around the orthography of the movie title became the satirized target of webcomic author Randall Munroe. Evidence of confusion regarding the syntax, morphology, and orthography of the title was present on TrekMovie.com immediately after they published the unconfirmed title on September 7th, thus dating the birth of the conversation to nearly six months prior to Randall Munroe's comical parody.

The first two paragraphs are interesting. Some stuff could be salvaged, but there would be WP:WEIGHT concerns because of having so much written about such a little issue. The "grammatical ambiguity" stuff is all navel-gazing bollocks. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The grammatical ambiguity is well cited. See sources 6, 7, 8, 9 10 in the reference section above. WP:WEIGHT does not apply, because no minority viewpoint is being represented. Xkcdreader (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What part of WP:SUBJECT isn't sinking in here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This section does not breech WP:SUBJECT. Every single sentence is about the movie title and its lexical interpretation. Every single sentence has the word title in it. Every single sentence applies to the section. Xkcdreader (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

My previous comment has been deleted by someone - please do NOT do this on a talk page.

It is still far too long. This should be a footnote to the article. One brief paragraph is sufficient. Nsign (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If you believe too much is written about the subject, let me justify it. 3 sentences are spent on the title itself. 5 sentences describe the history behind the formation of the title. 2 sentences describe confusing nature of the title. 2 sentences cite how the title is used by people related to the project. 4 sentences are used to describe the resulting chaos resulting from the use of a confusing title. 10/16 sentences are directly from people related to the project, and 6/16 concern journalists covering the title. Xkcdreader (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Its still too much - this is nothing more than a footnote to the film of possible interest to readers. There is no need for this level of detail. Nsign (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is. To quote the producer "There have been more conversations about what we're going to call it than went into actually shooting it." If they spent that much time coming up with it, 10 sentences describing it, and 6 illustrating the public reaction to it is perfectly appropriate. The information cannot be conveyed in less sentences. Where is this "its good enough" policy you are invoking? It is more interesting, more insightful, and more appropriate for an encyclopedia if the story is not truncated. Plus you have a publicly stated conflict of interest. You have already said, in this document no less, you want to suppress relevant information because it paints wikipedia's users in a less than positive light. Furthermore, the xkcd comic and the daily dot article are virtually required or the entire section falls apart. Paragraphs 1-3 rely on primary sources when it comes to citing confusion over the title, xkcd/dailydot are the secondary sources documenting the confusion the title causes. It would be irresponsible to fill the paragraph with only primary sources as per Wikipedia:No_original_research Xkcdreader (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The art department might have spent weeks deciding on the poster. The composer probably spent months writing the score. The costume dept will have spent weeks on the costumes. That doesn't mean we need a 4 bullet point section for each one. The issue here is whether it is relevant and adds something to the article. I've already agreed that it probably does. And I have no "conflict of interest". I've stated my personal opinion on how much light we should shine on this mess but will happily acknowledge this isn't supported by any policy and therefore I'm not forcing it. I just think that this information comprises too much space for what is ultimately a trivial issue in relation to the film as a whole. Nsign (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no space shortage. It is interesting, relevant, accurate, cited information. 16 sentences is about as brief as you can describe what previously took 40 thousand.Xkcdreader (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

But all that previous debate was about the application of a Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline, not about the title itself. We all agreed on what the title was. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The previous debate existed independent of wikipedia. I have told you this quite a few times and you continue to ignore the fact. It is all cited correctly. Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 document the ambiguity of the phrases. The debate was over Trek as a Verb and Into Darkness as a subtitle. This debate was not unique to Wikipedia, nor did it begin here. Xkcdreader (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Support As written, it's encyclopedic and well-sourced, and deftly handles a discussion of the issue without putting any emphasis on the specific debate on Wikipedia. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You think using Wikipedia, Twitter, xkcd and no-name pop culture blogs is an example of "well-sourced"? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It is fact there was confusion. The "no-name pop culture blogs", their comment sections, and Simon Pegg on twitter are all primary sources. As per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources "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." The claim that confusion existed is straightforward fact. I am not offering my personal interpretation of the issue. When I write "discussion took place about Trek as a verb" you can click the primary source and see the discussion. There is no analysis of whether the claims are true. There is no evaluation to the validity of the claims. It purely says an event happened. XKCD and The Daily Dot are both secondary sources which analyze the confusion. They are both appropriate as secondary sources. Xkcdreader (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You are rationalizing the madness. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. I am documenting the phenomenon caused by the ambiguous nature of the title in an encyclopedic fashion. The fact that the movie title caused this many people to join such a stupid discussion is notable. The Daily Dot agrees as a tertiary source. Xkcdreader (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Mostly Oppose per Bradd, Scjessey and Nsign. The parts we can use are the first bullet point (already in the article) and the second, which has some decent quotes. I really oppose delving into the grammar geekery, which is not relevant to the subject matter and is of no interest to the typical reader. You're dressing it up as if there was some very serious and technical debate, but the sources are just entertainment writers casually opining on the title when it was announced. In short, comments about the film and its production are good; comments about people commenting about the film are not relevant. Fletcher (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Trek being used as a verb for the first time ever is interesting to new and lifelong trek fans alike. The sources are not just entertainment writers. Look at the comment section in each document. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of comments concerning the new implications of trek as a verb. The document that broke the story has 2500 comments alone. The substantial volume of commentary that the topic has generated across the web is testament to the fact that people find it interesting, engaging, engrossing, and worth talking about. Who are you to say trek being used as a verb is not interesting to other people? Xkcdreader (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not even "comments about people commenting about the film". It's comments about people commenting on a Wikipedia discussion about the application of a style guideline on the title of the film. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No matter how many times you repeat this false statement it will not become true. A summary of the conversation regarding syntax, morphology, and orthography can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frungi/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_capitalization To equivocate the conversation as only about the MOS is factually incorrect. Said summery from the Frungi was republished by The Daily Dot here http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-star-trek-into-darkness-capitalization/ making it a reputable source on the discussion. I have cited a primary, secondary, and tertiary source regarding the confusion over the ambiguous grammar of the title. This primary source http://trekmovie.com/2012/09/07/exclusive-star-trek-sequel-title-confirmed/ contains every single argument made in the Frungi summary/daily dot article as to the noun/verbness and subtitleness of the Title, and then some more. The debate was not unique to wikipedia, and in fact predated the conversation on wikipedia by existing on September 7 2012. Just because wikipedia started talking about it really loudly after the fact, does not mean it can no longer be covered in the entry. Xkcdreader (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, “the Frungi”. Just noticed that and it made me laugh. But you’re mistaken—it was my first summary on this Talk page, in a subsection of a currently {{hat}}ted section, that they republished. Anyway, I don’t think it’s kosher for WIkipedia to use itself as a reference, especially not a page in userspace. —Frungi (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not altogether opposing a brief mention of the title being ambiguous; I'm just opposing a diversion into grammatical issues that are not topical to the article. Also, making judgments based on the number of online comments is not a reliable measure, and is not how people decide things on Wikipedia. The commenters are, by definition, those who were motivated to comment; there is no second column of people who commented that they were not interested. The self selection problem makes it notoriously difficult to know if an online group is representative of a larger population; for similar reasons you should not trust online polls. So that's one reason we stick with reliable sources. Fletcher (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. It seems we have reached consensus that the first two bullets can be added to the article. So Concerning the second and third paragraph.. At no point do I make a claim that the majority of people are involved in the debate. The words I used was widespread. This means it took place on a multitude of websites, involving users from a multitude of countries. However we want to define widespread, it is a factually correct word to use. The debate was not confined to a small area. There are 8 sentences in the 3/4th paragraphs. The analysis of the ambiguity/grammar is TWO sentences. The analysis of the resulting confusion is 3 sentences. The other 3 sentences directly relate to JJ Abrams, Simon Pegg, Marketing, and Paramount. They are ALL required to make the implied point, that the controversy was consciously and tactfully manufactured by Paramount. Each sentences is dependent on the context created by the previous. 8 extra sentences does not burden the uninterested, who will have hopefully stopped reading the TITLE section before they get to the end of the 16 sentences. The use of Trek as a verb/nosubtitle deserves 4 sentences, two about journalism/trekkers, one from Simon Pegg and one from Paramount. The mess it caused is succinctly and carefully crafted to stay neutral and on topic without mentioning wikipedia. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No. We have not reached a consensus on the first two bullets. What is in the article already is sufficient, though it is possible that a few elements of those two points can be considered. But the vast majority of what you have written is wholly inappropriate for the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Support as this is NOT about wikipedia so WP:SUBJECT is NOT being violated. This is about the confusion and discussion caused by the oddness of the title which (as I've said several times now, PRE-DATES THE WIKIPEDIA DEBATE!). Also, Scjessey are you deliberately being obtuse and ignoring the fact that discussion over the oddness of the title began long before the debate on wikipedia? Or have you just gone temporarily blind? Cos it's becoming extremely annoying to be repeatedly ignored. douts (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated above that I believe that the first two points made by Xkcdreader have some merit (although most of that is already satisfactorily covered in the article), just not the Wikipedia-related crap that follows. So are you being deliberately obtuse or blind? This is the second time you have misrepresented my comments and position, douts. You need to focus on the article, not the editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify your point on WP:SUBJECT. The subject of this Paragraph is the MOVIE TITLE. The entry shouldn't be about the movie, it needs to be about the MOVIE TITLE. Every sentence I wrote DIRECTLY references the movie title, usually by using the word title itself. Xkcdreader (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - Just to clarify my position (because some editors obviously need some help with that), I oppose the inclusion of all this extra crap in the article. Most of it is extremely poorly sourced (despite many claims to the contrary). We don't use Twitter, Wikipedia, webcomics or random insignificant blogs as sources for anything on this project. This proposed addition attempts to make a real mountain out of the holographic image of a molehill. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you fail to grasp the concept of guidelines being flexible. Simon Pegg's verified Twitter account is reliable in the context of this movie, since he is directly involved in it and knows a bucket load more about than any of us do. Also, for the last time, the ONLY mention of wikipedia in the 3rd nd 4th paragraphs is simply to illustrate the point about the unconventionalness of the title caused substantial amounts of discussion across many media - the vast majority of which predates the entire discussion here. douts (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Discounting the personal attacks, you can't have poorly sourced primary documents. They are primary documents. They exist. Their quality is irrelevant. You are running around with your fingers in your ears yelling "nananana" and refusing to even attempt comprehension of what people are explaining to you. To quote Wikipedia:Notability if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. I cited seven news agencies covering the initial issue, there was significant coverage. I ahave also demonstrated it was not a short term interest, because the conversation about it lasted six months. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Largely oppose, though I find it is quite an interesting read. I think some of this information belongs in this article, but frankly, it seems far too long as is. It definitely doesn’t deserve its own article. —Frungi (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• OpposeAfter much consideration and shock at how this whole can of worms got started I have decided that although some of the information might be worth a mention, it doesn't require a while section. MisterShiney ✉ 23:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the second paragraph look well reported to you? I am a little disappointed that you would change your mind, just because I defend my ideas when they are dismissed and shot down. The addition makes the article better not worse, it should be included on that basis alone. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: When did Wikipedia:TOO_LONG! and Good Enough as it Is start to take precedent over Wikipedia:Be_bold? This suggestion is WAY under the guiding limit suggested by Wikipedia:Article_size. It confuses me that people are championing "adequate as it is" over additional interesting information. 16 sentences is not an overly verbose number, especially when 10 of them are direct quotes from people directly related to the production of the movie itself. To everyone in the "too long" camp check out Wikipedia:Abundance_and_redundancy As a rule; if the material is factual, and if it's not entirely irrelevant to the topic, it should not be excluded. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  Speaking for myself, it just feels too long in my personal opinion. Too many words devoted to a relatively minor subject in an article about the movie as a whole—in other words, WP:UNDUE. Like I said, I feel some of that information definitely belongs in the article, but in a summarized form. But if you want to be bold, go ahead and add it in. Sounds like it’d get reverted, though. —Frungi (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  Also, “it should not be excluded” is not the same thing as “it should be included.” —Frungi (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed what seem to be the two most controversial lines. Will you reread it and suggest which sentences you think still DON'T add to the article? As I explained a couple times before WP:UNDUE does not apply. WP:UNDUE refers to minority positions. The ambiguous nature of the title is not a minority held belief, thus WP:UNDUE is irrelevant. Xkcdreader (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I rather suggest a rewrite to make it more concise. And you should read the rest of WP:UNDUE, particularly:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

—Frungi (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten it. Let's only talk about paragraph 2. 2 sentences are devoted to the public reaction to the title, 2 sentences are devoted to clarification front the star trek team itself, and 1 sentence references the storm the title caused, and 1 sentence is analysis of the marketing teams intentions. Are you in good faith telling me 6 sentences is undue weight for a discussion that lasted six months without a resolution? How can you possibly rewrite the TWO sentences which state "the title's release was met with confusion, and this is why" into less without removing substantial meaning. How are two sentences undue weight to something that received substantial coverage? Xkcdreader (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, none of your cited sources mention the words “orthography” or “catena”, so I don’t know if that could be an issue of WP:NOR; I’d love to hear other editors’ opinions on that. Some sentences can be combined I think, and I really don’t think you need the penultimate one commenting on Wikipedia’s specific debate. —Frungi (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, why do you insist on saying “instead instead” in your second paragraph? —Frungi (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Instead instead is probably a typo, I will check. I take some issue with bringing up “orthography” and “catena,” just because users may not be familiar with them . That is exactly why they are hyperlinked. Those are words with specific meanings. I could say punctuation instead but it would be less accurate. Orthography is the correct term for hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation. A catena is a unit of syntax and morphology. So while saying "syntax and morphology" is accurate, catena is the correct word. A loose synonym would be constituent, which I have replaced it with. What sentences can you combine? Provide an example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkcdreader (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Furthering the issue was Paramount's use of the movie title as a declarative phrase in its marketing synopsis ("[…] an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness"), and Simon Pegg's assertion that "Trek" was meant as a verb. —Frungi (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That is getting pretty pedantic. It is better without truncated quotes. You must understand that the reader will not have all the context we have gained through these discussions of the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkcdreader (talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 February 2013‎

It was just an example of shortening the text. If you disagree that that would be an improvement, then I’ll leave it for others to discuss. —Frungi (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed "Title" Section: The Final (Frontier) Take

The previous discussion indicated a concern over an abundance of unnecessary information. Accordingly I have revised this information further with a focus on brevity. As the previous conversation was no longer in reference to the current draft, a separate discussion section is more appropriate.

• On September 10th, 2012, Paramount confirmed the film's title as Star Trek Into Darkness. J. J. Abrams indicated that unlike the The Original Series films and yet in line with The Next Generation film series, his second Star Trek film would not include a number in the title. The decision was made to avoid repeating the sequel numbering that started with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan or making a confusing jump from Star Trek to Star Trek 12. Writer and producer Damon Lindelof addressed his team's struggle to settle upon a title, stating "there have been more conversations about what we're going to call it than went into actually shooting it." "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." Of the email chain co-writers kept containing every potential title, including many joke titles, Lindelof preferred Star Trek: Transformers 4 best "because it's technically available."
• The title's seemingly grammatical ambiguity in the context of traditional use of the name Star Terk along with the lack of a demarcating colon caused several months of discussions concerning the stylistic intent of the title's authors along with examinations of various possible interpretations with respect to the title's orthography and constituent structure. People questioned if "Trek was now a verb," and consequently, if Into Darkness was no longer an implied subtitle to the series title Star Trek but instead part of the noun phrase Trek Into Darkness. Contributing to further ambiguity was Paramount's unprecedented use of the movie title as a declarative phrase in its initial marketing synopsis which began: In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness. With regard to the film's title, 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" The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate over the title's semantic interpretation spanned months and had become "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention from which no common sense can escape." Morris recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title."

I personally believe the previous text is encyclopedic, well sourced, accurate, neutral, brief, relevant, bizarre, lighthearted, and of interest to the casual reader. I firmly attest that a random person could pick up this paragraph and fully understand the information being conveyed without requiring additional context and without being bombarded by irrelevant information It stays on topic of the movie title and resulting confusion regarding its lexical interpretation.

• Xkcdreader (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

References

• Support still. Liked it before, this is still fine. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Since you seem to constantly tweak your text and thus dominate the Talk page history, might I suggest moving it to a user subpage to edit it there, and linking to it here? Or even transclude it with, for instance, {{User:Xkcdreader/Star Trek Into Darkness Proposed Title Section}} —Frungi (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, I am new to contributing here. That is a good idea and I will have to figure out how to do that kind of stuff. This is looking like a final draft unless people see any typos or mistakes, so I think it would be futile for this project. Next time though. Xkcdreader (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Much better. I'd delete the final sentence of the first paragraph (do we really need to know that?) but otherwise I think that's acceptable. For the record, I'd still rather it wasn't in the article at all but if it has to be then I'd say this is fine. Nsign (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No it is not absolutely necessary. It is only 25 words though. It is fun piece of insight into the process of naming the movie. A tiny bit of levity never hurt anybody. I don't think the standard should be "do we absolutely need to know this" as much as "are you glad you glad you learned it?" I think others will find it interesting. If the community thinks it should go, it can go. I understand why you personally don't want it in the article but consider this: The title IS confusing to a lot of people. Where do you turn when you are confused and need information or clarification. An encyclopedia.Xkcdreader (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support as per previous discussion. douts (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose because it is absurdly, mind-numbingly verbose. This crap belongs in a blog, not on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• What about StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs as per xkcd? On a more serious note why not flip a coin, or take it to mediation? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe this needs mediation. This is textbook be bold. I was just being courteous and more importantly using everyone criticism to make the content better. I believe I adequately addressed the most common complaints (length, subject). Only one user is vehemently opposed, and they appear incapable or unwilling to understand nuances such as the difference between primary and secondary sources. I have spent ample time defending these criticisms elsewhere (as has at least one other person) on the talk page, and the aforementioned user has chosen not to conduct the discussion in good faith. In addition, this text was redrafted more times than necessary to make as many contributors happy as possible who were uncomfortable with its verbosity (notice Nsign's position switched from "this is a joke" to "much better". Pfhorrest in his first vote of support said the text was so informative it changed his mind regarding whether the title is intentionally constructed as is. This is exactly what encyclopedias are suppose to do, inform people.) The person I am alluding to was the same person arguing that [MOS] takes precedent over common sense and common name. Scjessey seems to believe consensus means he must agree for consensus to be reached. I would suggest other users ignore these disrespectful (calling other users contributions crap) and irrelevant tangents. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus" is basically "broad agreement". You are to be applauded for working hard, but it has largely been a wasted effort. You have tried to make it seem as if the choice of title is a Really Big Deal that needs extensive coverage, but it really isn't. It's worth a line or two in the article at best. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The title is a big deal. "There have been more conversations about what we're going to call it than went into actually shooting it." How many lines does the average movie have concerning its production? In twelve sentences I have covered the title, the confusion it causes people, and the resulting conflict the confusion caused. To quote someone who actually read what I wrote without dismissing it, "As written, it's encyclopedic and well-sourced, and deftly handles a discussion of the issue without putting any emphasis on the specific debate on Wikipedia. --DavidK93" (emphasis mine)

(edit conflict) While it should be classic WP:BOLD territory, and the people involved should frankly be ashamed for caring as much as they clearly do, if you've reached the point where xkcd are taking the piss out of you for a ridiculous length discussion then mediation does seem like a good idea.

The only reason I can see not to take it to mediation would be if everyone is in retrospect happy with the status quo so we can stop this ridiculous discussion without further effort. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean well (and thank you for restoring my comment that was deleted by Xkcdreader), but there is no need for mediation over the title. That issue has been resolved. This discussion is about whether or not to add an extensive, exhaustive, totally unnecessary exposé about the choice of title to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The title section sucks right now. There are other discussions on this talk page in regard to its faults. At a minimum I am putting in my first paragraph. We can debate if the last sentence of the first paragraph should be removed. I have a very hard time believing the Transformers 4 joke is overly verbose, we are talking one line of text. I can firmly say (and in good faith) consensus has been reached regarding the first five sentences. As for "the people involved" they really shouldn't have a say because there is an inherent conflict of interest. If I was involved in the original debate I would be surely want to suppress my "contribution". Xkcdreader (talk)

All of it is overly verbose. Your claim of consensus (when hardly anyone has weighed in with an opinion yet) is laughable. Your derogatory comment aimed at contributors acting is good faith is disgusting. I don't care how much of a "newbie" you are (and I'm highly skeptical of that claim), I respectfully suggested you tender an apology. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Civility WP:BITEY I am not the one calling your contributions laughable crap. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Summary of discussion (by Xkcdreader):

MisterShiney: Might be worth a mention. Oppose because it is not required information.

Bradd: opposes because author is increasingly more provocative and pointy than productive. (I tried to tone it down as best as possible. I don't think this is a valid reason to exclude appropriate content. Sensationalism removed.)

Rob Sinden: No issue with first paragraph, second paragraph is bordering on WP:FANCRUFT, (which I acknowledge is a fair criticism.) WP:UNDUE and asked for sensationalism to be removed (and it was.) WP:SUBJECT

Scjessey: The first half is interesting. WP:WEIGHT concerns. Repeatedly stated first half has merit just not the Wikipedia-related crap that follows aka WP:SUBJECT

SarekOfVulcan: WP:SUBJECT

douts: Support. I don't see any major problems with this, NOT about wikipedia so WP:SUBJECT is NOT being violated.

Frungi: interesting but too long. (Frungi helps me reduce it)

Fletcher: Supports first half, opposes discussion of grammar because it is too technical, not altogether opposing a brief mention of the title being ambiguous, opposing a diversion into grammatical issues

Nsign: "My wish to keep this out of the article due to concerns about reputational damage" "Yes that's a fair compromise" and asked for further reduction. Nsign agrees it's acceptable and it is fine.

Eraserhead1: Should be classic WP:BOLD territory, may need mediation.

Pfhorrest: Gives a pretty comprehensive overview of it here, deserves placement in the article.

David93: Encyclopedic and well-sourced, and deftly handles a discussion of the issue without putting any emphasis on the specific debate on Wikipedia.

Xkcdreader: WP:Abundance_and_redundancy WP:Be_bold WP:Use_common_sense and WP:Ignore_all_rules trump WP:UNDUE. We are talking SIX sentences here, hardly a lot of weight imho. WP:SUBJECT is an invalid criticism. Every single sentence directly addresses the movie title.

Consensus:

Bullet 1 = Support!

Bullet 2 = WP:SUBJECT WP:UNDUE / WP:WEIGHT VS NOT-WP:SUBJECT WP:BOLD WP:IAR

Xkcdreader (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Proposed "Title" Section into Darkness

E P I S O D E 'IV'

A SECOND PROPOSAL FOLLOWS

The first half this of proposal met consensus.

This is an brief consolidation of previous conversation.

It concerning only where consensus could not be reached.

It is intended to assist mediation if necessary.

---

Proposal Part Two:

The title's seemingly grammatical ambiguity in the context of traditional use of the name Star Trek along with the lack of a demarcating colon caused several months of discussions concerning the stylistic intent of the title's authors along with examinations of various possible interpretations with respect to the title's orthography and constituent structure. People questioned if "Trek was now a verb," and consequently, if Into Darkness was no longer an implied subtitle to the series title Star Trek but instead part of the noun phrase Trek Into Darkness. Contributing to further ambiguity was Paramount's unprecedented use of the movie title as a declarative phrase in its initial marketing synopsis which began: In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness. With regard to the film's title, 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" The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate over the title's semantic interpretation spanned months and had become "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention from which no common sense can escape." Morris recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title."

---

Breakdown:

ONE sentence documents confusion across the web regarding the title.

ONE sentence explains why people find the title confusing.

TWO quotes from people directly involved in the production of the movie that fuel further ambiguity within the title's constituent structure.

ONE quote from a journalist regarding the debate over ambiguous nature of the title.

ONE quote from a journalist explaining his theory that the tile is a well calculated marketing tactic by J.J. Abrams designed to create controversy.

---

ISSUE: Are SIX sentences on the ambiguous nature of the title WP:UNDUE or is it an appropriate summary for an Encyclopedia entry?

MisterShiney: Might be worth a mention, oppose because it is not required information.

Rob Sinden: WP:UNDUE WP:SUBJECT WP:FANCRUFT

Scjessey: WP:WEIGHT WP:SUBJECT

SarekOfVulcan: WP:SUBJECT

douts: Support. No major problems. NOT about wikipedia so WP:SUBJECT is NOT being violated.

Frungi: Interesting but too long. (the Frungi then helps reduce it)

Nsign: Wishes to keep this out of the article due to concerns about reputational damage, but agrees it is acceptable.

Fletcher: Opposes discussion of grammar because it is too technical, not opposing a brief mention of the title being ambiguous.

Eraserhead1: Should be classic WP:BOLD territory, may need mediation.

Pfhorrest: Comprehensive overview that deserves placement in the article.

David93: Encyclopedic and well-sourced; deftly handles the issue without putting any emphasis on Wikipedia.

Factions:

OPPOSE: WP:SUBJECT & WP:UNDUE - (MisterShiney, Rob Sinden, Scjessey, SarekOfVulcan, Fletcher)

SUPPORT: NOT-WP:SUBJECT & WP:BOLD & WP:IAR - (douts, Eraserhead1, Pfhorrest, David93, Xkcdreader)

---

If you have previously weighed in there is really no need to Support/Oppose this again. Let's hear some fresh voices!

• SUPPORT: WP:Abundance_and_redundancy WP:Be_bold WP:Use_common_sense and WP:Ignore_all_rules trump WP:UNDUE. WP:SUBJECT is an invalid criticism due to every sentence directly addresses the movie title. Xkcdreader (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say these guidelines "trump" the other? I don't think so. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That part is my opinion. I invite you to explain why you think it would be the other way around. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Still way too verbose, weasel words ("people questioned"), impenetrable language ("orthography"), low-quality sourcing (Twitter, blogs), pointless discussion about the "debate" (the Daily Dot stuff), far too many references. This is a tiny little unimportant thing that does not need a Tolstoy-like tome. That first sentence can't even be read aloud without pausing for breath around 8 times. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This response is in bad faith. It is purposely disruptive. The rebuttle to all these claims has already been provided ad nauseum and continually ignored.

the impenetrable language ("orthography") has a hyperlink to its definition. Orthography compliments grammar and means hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation. Just because you did not know a word does not mean it is not the BEST word to use.

primary sources by definition are not high or low quality. They just exist. You are not allowed to make any interpretation. You may only state what they are. Simon Pegg's twitter account is veritably him. It is no different than a person speaking to a microphone on television. The "blogs" are also primary sources documenting what was written.

The Daily Dot article is arguably required by Wikipedia's standards. It is the secondary or tertiary source. You are a college instructior, why am I still explaining the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources? This is why I believe the editor I am replying to is acting in bad faith. It has been explained to him countless times that they are primary sources, and he still attempts to qualify them as "low quality." I explicitly asked for new voices, as we have already documented others complaints. This user was the very first person to reply. He was disruptive the last three times he brought up these same points, and it is disruptive again.

'People questioned' are not weasel words. It is verifiable fact if you read the cited sources. If it said "people say" with no citation you would be correct. To quote the WP:WEASEL page you provided: "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." They have been. All primary sources have been correctly provided in the citation at the end of the sentence. Any user can click the sources and see what has been said by reading the page. This is where COMMONSENSE comes into play. If a thousand people all said the same thing, it flies completely in the face of common sense to inline cite all thousand people.

the pointless discussion about the "debate" is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to provide context to the final sentence. It completely changes the meaning of the paragraph to say "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into" without acknowledging he successfully created a trainwreck.

You have a substantial conflict of interest. You were factually part of the "swirling maelstrom of anal retention" and it is documented. It reflects poorly on you. Regardless, it does not make the sentence any less verifiable. The author verifiable said it. As stated above acknowledgement of the "debate" is necessary to provide context to the final sentence.

Your breathing patterns are irrelevant, they cannot be used to prevent verified, accurate content.

Xkcdreader (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You made your case and I offered a rebuttal. You do not need to constantly "rebut the rebuttal" as well. It is extremely aggravating. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You were explicitly asked not to offer a rebuttal, because you are derailing the conversation. The other two users who commented offered valid criticisms. You did not. You offered the same disproven claims as last time. This is bad faith. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If you make a proposal for the article, you don't get to decide who can or cannot oppose that proposal. Furthermore, it is only your opinion that I am "derailing" anything. My criticism is just as valid as anyone else's. You are trying to force your proposal into the article by bludgeoning anyone who offers the least bit of criticism, and you have set me up to be your "archnemesis" because it is easier to attack me than accept how wrong your proposal is. It's time for you to let everyone have their say without you jumping on people and telling them they have a "conflict of interest" or some such bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked for fresh opinions because the old ones were getting in the way and causing clutter. I started a new section so we could get away from those people and have an isolated conversation. My attempt did not work. Your opinions had been registered and did not need to be reexpressed. You don't need to vote twice. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UNDUE. This really isn't important, it doesn't add to the article, just reports some web chatter, borderline WP:FANCRUFT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do you guys insist on repeating arguments that have already been rebuffed?? Simon Pegg's twitter account IS a reliable source in this instance since he is directly involved in the movie. (and WP:RS is a guideline so flexible). Since when did "too many references" become a reason not to add content to an article?? And as for WP:FANCRUFT, it is very presumptuous, not to mention somewhat arrogant, to assume you know what people will find interesting. Instead of obstinately refusing to budge from your position - why not do something useful and provide a suggestion on how to improve the suggestion? (I apologise if this comes off as aggressive, but I'm starting to lose my patience with people preventing others from improving the article.) douts (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I admit this does boarder on WP:FANCRUFT, you are correct. Transparency is important. I am not hiding the fact that I agree with you. However, the fact that a four word phrase could not be deciphered in over six months is notable. Credible news organizations (the daily dot meets the criteria by having an editorial board (http://www.dailydot.com/masthead/) covered the fact that people were having trouble deciphering the title of the movie. In the TITLE section of this movies page, it IS ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that a six month debate over the meaning of the title took place across the interweb (including partially but not exclusively on wikipedia) be mentioned. This is why I believe WP:BOLD & WP:IAR along with the essay WP:Abundance_and_redundancy outweighs WP:UNDUE. Than you for providing criticism. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any mention of "months of discussion". This is a clear reference to Wikipedia, even if inexplicit. This article needs to be focused on STID, and not on Wikipedia. Indirect self referencing is not ok, and disguising self references, as the above does, is worse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Joe, discussion about the unusualness of the title began long before any discussion here, so in no way is that a clear reference to wikipedia. This has been stated numerous times. douts (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, it is a reference to TrekMovie.com where the discussion began on September 7th. If you click the source you can see every claim made in the sentence in the comments of the article (over 2500 comments) before the discussion even began on wikipedia. The fact that the discussion also took place on wikipedia does not mean it did not take place elsewhere as well. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I know of course that there was discussion about the title, on its release, in September. But only Wikipedia continued the discussion. We don't discuss Wikipedia. The suggested text is way too self-referential. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Like above where I admitted I was approaching WP:FANCRUFT, and I believe you are correct this is approaching self reference. I am not sure you can actually prove the debate quieted down everywhere except wikipedia, but I don't want to go looking for sources to the contrary either. The fact of the matter is, the press coverage this wikipedia talk page got, REINVIGORATED the discussion across the web. It has spread to reddit, the xkcd forums and other newspapers have written about the topic. So while I believe you can technically make a claim to self reference, its not in the spirit of the rules to use technicalities to prevent content you dislike. I personally believe this is a clear cut case of WP:IAR Cheers, and thanks for the criticism. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition, this is not a disguised reference. It is out of courtesy for users, as multiple people mentioned they did not like how explicitly it was mentioned before. I rephrased the sentence to make it about the movie title and not wikipedia. The topic of the sentence is the debate the title caused, and it directly feeds into the next sentence. The sentence itself is IMPERATIVE to give context to the final sentence. I explained above. Briefly: The final sentence says it was jj abrams intention to create a trainwreck (aka get people talking about star trek, which by the way he was successful atif it is true.) The sentence loses all meaning if the paragraph does not propose he was successful. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So we are now into the 5th section about the same thing...? You dont need to keep summarising everyone's arguments. It's not the way things are done and quite frankly you cannot summarise an editor's comments without something being lost in translation. You need to reach a consensus separately from trying to work on the section. Hence why we are now in our 5th section and before it's inclusion, you need the consensus. Which...you don't have. MisterShiney ✉ 22:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Get consensus on the concept before re-re-rewriting it and potentially wasting all that effort. —Frungi (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus that it should be mentioned was got above - and the consensus was that it should be mentioned. The re-writings were an effort of address some of the concerns raised about the wording etc. The biggest problems right now are Scjessey's refusal to accept that his comments regarding sources are incorrect - too many sources is NEVER a bad thing; that Simon Pegg's twitter is a reliable source in this instance, and Rob's mention of WP:FANCRUFT, which, as has been acknowledged - even if it is quite frankly somewhat inappropriate to attempt to predict what others think is interesting. douts (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I meant consensus on whether to have a full paragraph devoted to it, which seems to be some of the reason for opposing. Sorry for the confusion. And I agree that an actor’s verified Twitter account is a reliable source for quotes from said actor. —Frungi (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: The writing style is pretentious. Ryan Vesey 22:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to hear your reasoning behind that - it ain't pretentious in the slightest. douts (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Anyone irked by pretension left 40,000 words ago. Be bold. It's imperfect, yes, and it moves this... um, somewhat pedantic debate... one step further. --Whoosit ^(stalk) 23:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Now counting over 73,000 words, BTW. The debate on the cartoon is about to outpace the debate on the "i", and in a fraction of the time. There's gotta be another comic strip in there somewhere... --Whoosit ^(stalk) 23:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: the obsessed single-purpose account User:Xkcdreader needs to give this article a rest. (As MisterShiney said, we're now in the 5th section of discussion on this in how many days?) -sche (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Any reference that mentions Wikipedia should be excluded as unreliable or self-referencing with regards to the subject of this article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  Why? I don’t believe WP:SELFREF prohibits using useful information from sources that also mention WIkipedia. It would be Bad to use such sources exclusively, but that’s not the case here. —Frungi (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  SELFREF is a style guideline not a rule. It should not interfere with the inclusion content that is otherwise worthy, especially when the PURPOSE of the inclusion is not self reference. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• The text is inappropriate because it draws attention to ourselves. Maybe it is fixable, but the length (as opposed to the conclusions) of our discussions here should not gain mention in the article, whether directly, or via external attention to our talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no "under no circumstances draw attention to yourself rule." There are exceptions. There is IAR. The mention of the debate is NECESSARY to set up the final sentence regarding JJ Abrams marching strategy. The debate isnt being mentioned for no reason. There is a purpose. Do you understand what I am trying to say. When you read the last two sentences, do you see how they go together to form a larger thought? It doesn't belong in a wikipedia in culture article because that is not the topic of the sentence, (the movie title is debate itself is.) If you can find a way to paraphrase it instead of quote it, we might be able to find a middle ground. As it stands at the moment the authors word choose is the best we have, because we need secondary sources. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Again, I don’t see where anything says that talking about Wikipedia renders all information from a source unusable. Can you point me to the WP: page? —Frungi (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• An external opinion that references an internal opinion is tainted. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs on an article explicitly referencing Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia in culture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• (ec)Mabye:

The title has seemingly grammatical ambiguity in the context of traditional use of the name Star Trek and the lack of a demarcating colon leavs the stylistic intent ambiguous..[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Possible interpretations include whether "Trek is a verb," and consequently, if Into Darkness was no longer an implied subtitle to the series title Star Trek but instead part of the noun phrase Trek Into Darkness.[1][4][5][6][7][9][10][11] Contributing to further ambiguity was Paramount's unprecedented use of the movie title as a declarative phrase in its initial marketing synopsis which began: In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.[12][13]

The last two sentences don't warrant inclusion. Simon Pegg's opinion is not known to be connected to title decisions, and Kevin Morris' speculation on someone's possible intents is too tenuous. Also, it has too many references. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The TOPIC of the paragraph is the confusion caused by the title. Simon Peggs tweet added to the confusion. The last sentence says the confusion was caused on purpose as a marketing ploy. The previous sentences tells us the plan is successful. Removing these sentences removes a substantial part of the story. Consensus isnt repeating the same thing over and over, it is listening to each other and finding a middle ground. This paragraph was formed THROUGH consensus. I wrote something, it was criticized, it was revised. Frungi and Nsign and Rob Sinden have all helping create consensus by finding middle ground.Xkcdreader (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

“Simon Pegg's tweet added to the confusion.” Can you source that claim? Not the quote, the claim that it added to the confusion. That is, can you show that the quote is relevant and that this isn’t WP:synthesis? (Not that I’m accusing you of such—it’s just best to have proof.) —Frungi (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem Frungi. I guess we will need to add MORE sources to this :) http://nerdrepository.com/movies/star-trek-sequel-officially-titled-star-trek-darkness/ 11 pages of discussion - http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=6950329 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkcdreader (talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The first only says that Pegg mentioned the title; and the second is a forum thread, which I don't think are generally acceptable sources… —Frungi (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The first one says I don't know what to think. The forum has users arguing over if it is a verb. A form discussion should be a legitimate primary source when the statement is "people discussed." If a reasonable person can click the source it works as a primary document. We CANNOT interpret anything, only state facts. It is fine line to walk we just have to be careful how the sentences are worded. Xkcdreader (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

After further consideration, the sentence roughly reads "Simon Pegg said...' It makes not claim as to whether he added to the confusion. Such a conclusion is left for the reader to decide. As it is currently written, it is a statement of fact, and appropriate. Xkcdreader (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Referencing that "the title can confuse" is good.

Simon Peggs tweet is a primary source that should not be considered sufficiently reliable or reputable for inclusions. Note that he is not (known to be) an author or publisher. Wikipedia is loath to include tweets, even from interesting people.

"The last sentence says the confusion was caused on purpose as a marketing ploy." It does, speculatively. But this is becoming tenous and only indirectly connected to the subject. And it is speculation. Speculation, by others, is only interesting if yet others have found it interesting.

"The previous sentences tells us the plan is successful." That is weak. Too weak.

"Removing these sentences removes a substantial part of the story." Yes. The story was much too long. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph thesis is: The confusing nature of the title's grammar led to much debate and Kevin Morris speculated this was JJ Abrams intention when selecting the title. If you can rewrite the paragraph to convey the same message, I am all ears. I am positive the first sentence 'could be trimmed, I just see no reason for it, when to do so conveys less information. The first sentence is long but it transmits a WEALTH of information is a succinct fashion. None of the words are meaningless, so as you remove them, you change the meaning of the sentence. If you think it needs trimming, maybe write the simple.wikipedia version? Not wanting to draw attention to this page is NOT a valid reason to remove all mention of Kevin Morris's analysis. I understand why you would prefer not to, but hiding an embarrassing situation does not take precedence. He offered UNIQUE analysis into the situation, and it is more than appropriate to quote him. Style guidelines do not overrule BOLD. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Simon Pegg's Twitter account has been verified as being the real him and as such is reliable, and while he may not be an author or a publisher, he is directly involved in the film and therefore knows much better than us what the intent was. douts (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Consensus is not the more popular opinion. Consensus is taking in all the proper and valid concerns raised. Consensus is NOT the absence of objection. I am beating the shit out of it on the talk page first before adding it to the article so as to be sensitive to nearly everyone's concerns. Revisions are a good thing, and I chose to work on them in semi-private first to respect the people involved in this story. (Ignoring Scjessey's points, which have been debunked ad nauseam) Rob Sinden is making what I consider BY FAR the most sense for the exclude side. He thinks it's trivial and UNDUE. This leaves us with TWO things to discuss. What is the maximum appropriate length to discuss the movies title? The producers and the internet BOTH had substantial debates over the grammar of the title That is fact. Is THREE-SIX SENTENCES concerning the confusion that resulted really UNDUE? I can't buy that argument. Twelve sentences is the appropriate length for a description of a phenomenon that has spawned hundreds of thousands of words and no conclusion. As far as policy goes BOLD and IAR would trump UNDUE. Logic, commonsense, and consensus should be to err on the side of abundance over exclusion, in the spirit of bold, UNLESS someone can EXPLAIN why UNDUE should trump BOLD. As such no one yet has. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The arguments here about the title and cartoon are as significant than any flamewar on any subject on any forum -- that is to say, not at all, and not at all appropriate for an "encyclopaedia", even one with so much devoted to pop culture. Anyone interested in Wikipedia's debates on the title would be reading this page, not the article. It's also pretty obvious that with such impassioned debate here that no summary in 6, 12, or 1000 sentences would remain stable for more than a minute. It'd just be opening another version of the revert wars that plagued the lead paragraph. It's just a fact that the title, without a colon, is ungrammatical and no choice of capitalisation can make it parse. As for Wikipedia using its own rules to capitalise, this is quite standard procedure. See for instance how any library, such as the Library of Congress, styles titles. E.g. Star trek generations. 202.81.249.209 (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If the flamewar is orchestrated as part of a larger marketing campaign related to the movie it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We can verify that at least one credible media personality has published this claim. The flamewar, as you call it, adds three sentences to the article and two of them are related directly to the titles grammar not arguing. ONE sentence directly mentioning the argument and only the argument is appropriate and tactful, because it is used to set up the following point. Furthermore, the title is perfectly grammatical. [Trek is a verb. Into is a compound directional spatial adposition. Trek Into is a verb phrase. Darkness is a noun. Trek Into Darkness is a noun phrase. Star is an adjective. Star Trek Into Darkness is a noun phrase the exact same way Road Trip Into Wilderness is a noun phrase.] It is not hard to parse, however people are confused because Star Trek is not normally used this way and split up. The noun phrase Trek Into Darkness has replaced the old noun Trek. Star has ALWAYS been an adjective. QED I am comfortable saying consensus has been established. This does not mean everyone agrees and there is no opposition, it means a wide variety of opinions have been heard and discussed. Their merits have been weighed by multiple editors and the most valid two arguments are UNDUE vs BOLD BECAUSE. WP:SELFREF is a style guideline and not a valid reason to keep the most controversial sentence out in and of itself. User whoosit said it best. "Be bold. It's imperfect, yes." I am not going to just throw it into the article yet, because it is worth giving other editors time to propose NEW arguments. That's what consensus is, listening to other people and trying to respect as many viewpoints as possible. The text has been substantially rewritten compared to its initial form, to respect other editors inputs. An who previously said it was a joke, now says it is appropriate. "It isn't important" is a judgement call, presumptuous, and enough of a minority has agreed the debate is worth ONE sentence and warrants inclusion. If no NEW arguments are made, and the old ones are repeated and repeated I am going to WP:IAR WP:UNDUE and GO BOLDLY. Xkcdreader (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works (or grammar for that matter, but we'll let that go for now). If you add something that there is clear opposition to, it will be reverted. You have no consensus to make these changes. In additional to all its other faults, there's also degree of synthesis in your proposal. You really need to let this go. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to be very respectful of you and your opinions because your contributions have been valuable. Consensus is not the same thing as the majorities opinion. If people revert it, it will eventually go to mediation. Telling me to let this go is not how debates are settled. You don't need consensus to be bold AND every option so far has been acknowledged and considered, in line with how the consensus process works. The only possible synthesis would be the first two sentences, which combine a couple ideas into one sentence with conjunctions. If you feel they somehow violate WO:NOR, please help rewrite them. The last two sentences of the paragraph are direct quotes from a reputable journalist concerning the debate over the grammatical structure and interpretations of the movie title. The fact that people are debating what the title means, with nary a solid conclusion is newsworthy, and has been covered by multiple reputable news organization. Grammar experts have been called in from newspapers to examine the orthography of the title. This is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, and multiple people have agreed in this respect. The middle two sentences are quotes from people involved in the production of the movie. The first tow statements are statements of fact derived from primary sources. There is no interpretation or analysis. They are merely sentences of fact describing an event that has occurred. People are being given ample time to help rewrite the paragraph. Continually shouting WP:UNDUE is not in the spirit of consensus, you are suppose to help find middle ground and not stick in a corner and continually shout your opinion. All you have stated is, "not enough people should find this interesting" and you have no proof to back said claim up. I have now asked you to go into detail and explain WHY you believe UNDUE overrides BOLD and you have yet to respond. Therefore, although your sentiment may be the majority opinion, it is not necessarily the most valid opinion. Consensus is a METHOD USED TO ACHIEVE GOALS not the resulting option derived from the method. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. So far consensus has been utilized appropriately. When I GO BOLDLY, consensus will have been reached until an editor decides to revert the edit. If it is reverted, consensus will have been reached again. Consensus being reached is equivalent to the status quo. If a revert occurs, this issue will go through mediation, because I (along with a large minority of editors) do not believe WP:UNDUE is an appropriate reason to keep out encyclopedic, interesting, valid, relevant, accurate, cited, neutral information. You and you alone are not in a position to determine what is due weight vs fancruft. Although I may come off as slightly aggressive or persistent, I appreciate your continued participation in this conversation. Xkcdreader (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, any bold move you make will be reverted if considered inappropriate, and then discussed. However, if you knowingly make a change that explicitly goes against consensus, then this is disruptive behaviour. Please desist. I'm not going to waste my time helping you rewrite sentences of synthetic content that shouldn't be here. It's all very well claiming to invoke WP:IAR, but what you fail to grasp is that 5-6 editors on here are telling you that it doesn't belong, therefore WP:IAR is not a valid argument, as we believe that these changes are not beneficial to Wikipedia. You consistently don't listen and persist with trying to railroad this change through, mistakenly believing that if you shout loud enough, you will have your way. By summarising others' arguments, you have continually misrepresented the views of myself and other editors. Please stop this disruptive behaviour now. We've had enough. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

[Sidenote: If you have had enough, you are more than welcome to stop participating. I am not asking you to, because you have been helpful and respectful of those who disagree with you. You're state of having had enough is not justification to suppress other peoples opinions.] Xkcdreader (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's your disruptive behaviour I'm trying to suppress, not your opinions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

From my point of view, your behavior is disruptive. You continually lead the conversation in circles instead of forward. This is why we can't have nice things. I am not trying to bull-rush this into the article. I am acknowledging SIGNIFICANT opposition. I am not misrepresenting points. You keep claim that I am ignoring everyone, which is untrue. I am ignoring one person (not you) because they refuse to have a dialogue. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Justification for inclusion: Pfhorrest, David93, douts, Eraserhead1, Whoosit and I have reached a minority consensus which can be summed up as: The proposal is a comprehensive overview that deserves placement in the article. The proposed addition is Encyclopedic, well-sourced, and deftly handles the topic without putting any emphasis on Wikipedia. It is of interest to a wide variety of people and escapes meeting the definition of WP:FANCRUFT because of the volume of people who have participated in discussing the topic. Dissenting opinions include: Frungi, who agrees it is an interesting topic, and Nsign who is not in support of inclusion but agrees it is appropriately written for inclusion in an encyclopedia. In addition, Fletcher is not opposed to brief mention of the ambiguity, however believes the discussion of grammar is too technical. Douts and I believe it is arrogant to assume you know what people will find interesting and is a misuse of WP:UNDUE. It is recognized the majority opinion at this time is WP:UNDUE, with a vocal minority claiming WP:SELFREF is mean. (I, in good faith, believe this is an accurate summary of our point that does not misrepresent any persons views.) Xkcdreader (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

NO! just by claiming that you have a "minority consensus" does not make it so! Stop summarising like this, you're putting unfair bias on the arguments, and misrepresenting the views of others. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly whose views is he misrepresenting?? Also, there is clearly more of a consensus to include rather than exclude at present, since consensus is supposed to be based upon validity of arguments and not votes as there is no fully valid reason to exclude so far mentioned. WP:UNDUE might be a minor issue but as stated earlier it is quite frankly arrogant on anyones part to assume you know what people will find interesting. douts (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone's. Summaries like this take any arguments and opinion out of context, and are selectively inclusive. I don't think that this summary correctly represents anyone, especially the "dissenters", as it only shows the elements that they may be supportive of in other circumstances. Quite simply, summaries are biased, and should not be made. Per WP:TPNO: "The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I second douts sentiment that it is quite frankly arrogant on anyones part to assume you know what people will find interesting. I added it to the summary. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And it is exactly this summaried misrepresentation that has misled you to think that there is consensus in favour of inclusion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Rob, this statement vastly misrepresents my statements. I am claiming consensus should favor inclusion. If I believed consensus had been reached I would have added it already, instead of continuing to work through the consensus process. As it stands there is still a pretty big disagreement over whether WP:UNDUE applies. Many of you have made the claim, and none of you have backed it up. Normally I would dismiss your argument due to lack of evidence, HOWEVER I am recognizing you may have a point. Thus, because you might have a valid point, to overrule you would violate consensus. This is why I am calling for further discussion. You have stated you do not wish to discuss any longer. If you walk away, and nobody defends WP:UNDUE, I will determine that consensus favors inclusion. But, because of my belief that you have a point, I further contend there is no rush to include, and we should continue the conversation on the talk page for the time being. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Rob, I believe you are incorrectly interpreting what I have written. It states a minority of people have reached their own consensus not that our consensus matches the overall consensus. I contend current public opinion is against inclusion (mostly due to WP:SELFREF) but personally believe WP:UNDUE is being used to block instead, because WP:SELFREF is only a style guideline and easily overruled by WP:BEBOLD. I concede, as it stands at the moment, this text should not be included as is, and needs further work or discussion. Thus, I have yet to add it to the Article because, as you say, doing so could be considered as disruptive. I (and I believe accurately. You have stated it misrepresents a view, but have yet to back up your claim with any evidence) summarized our point in the event this does reach mediation. You are making sweeping accusations of using peoples positions out of context, yet you wont provide specifics. Your claim is, at the moment, unsubstantiated. I acknowledge I could have interpreted something incorrectly, but it was not done on purpose. Which dissenter am I misrepresenting?? I find your belief that you are allowed to dictate what we find interesting more arrogant.Xkcdreader (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You've made one hell of a mess of this talk page by adding all these summaries, and hiding all the previous discussions (which I had to undo yesterday) and have completely muddied any chance of a consensus. Your summaries have put paid to that. I know you're a new editor, and I've been trying to hold my tongue, but quite frankly you need to stop. Being bold is not about going against consensus, and it doesn't "trump" anything, as you claim above. All guidelines are supposed to be complementary to each other for the benefit of Wikipedia. I, and others, believe that, per WP:UNDUE, and other guidelines, it is inappropriate to bang on about this issue in the article about the film. The title is mentioned already, maybe it can be expanded on, maybe not, but your proposal is not acceptable, and it certainly doesn't need to be in the form you propose above. If you're going to be WP:BOLD, try building on what we have (maybe a word or two at a time, but be careful to be encyclopedic, and don't be surprised if you get reverted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I made a mess of the talk page? Really? It was an absolute disaster before. You were lampooned by a webcomic. I added structure and thus far it has been civil. I acknowledge your sentiment that the "proposal is not acceptable". (I also apologize for misusing the hide function. I misunderstood what it was for. I assumed people would want things collapsed, and that if they wanted to see the prior conversation, they would scroll up and use the SHOW button. My mistake.) I am trying to build on what we have, and trying to build consensus. You are the one calling for the conversation to end before a compromise can be reached. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Summaries automatically misrepresent because comments have been reauthored to your interpretation. I don't want to speak for others (which is what you've been doing) but I don't think Frungi or Nsign would agree with your summation of their input. Don't summarise the opinions of others - as WP:TPNO says: "The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context". By summarising, you are taking them out of context and presenting them in a manner that can only be seen to advance your cause. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait, summaries AUTOMATICALLY misrepresent views? You are claiming a valid summary is impossible? Bollox. Quit citing that document. It is a generalization and a suggestion. It says you shouldn't do that. It does not say my summary is automatically misrepresenting the users. You should not speak for Frungi or Nsign, because I have not misrepresented their points. I am not speaking for them. I am summarizing their views accurately. I can cite exactly what they have said that matches up with my summary. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And this is exactly why it shouldn't be done. You're saying I shouldn't speak for them (which I purposely haven't), yet you think it's okay for you to speak for them in your summaries. WTF? And your blanket dismissal of Wikipedia guidelines except for the ones that advance your position is puzzling. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not about me dictating what other people will find interesting! It's about significance. Per WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And this is the crux of the disagreement and why I have yet to claim full consensus. I have avoided being bold thus far, specifically because YOU are raising a good point. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And a 6 month long continuous discussion across numerous sites and news articles is not significant?? As for your statement that I have been led to believe there is consensus because of the summaries - you're wrong. I have addressed every argument you and others came up with and none of them are valid enough (at all in some cases) to warrrent exclusion. It may be that the addition can be further shortened (although I'm not sure it can without losing context) and the consensus is clearly in favour of at least mentioning it. douts (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Not in terms of the film - no. it is "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". And we already do mention the titling in the article - perhaps it can be expanded slightly (that's all we might have consensus for based on discussions so far), but not to the extent suggested above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The subject is the film title, not the film. Frankly I don't understand how you can't acknowledge it is possible the weight appropriate to its significance to the subject is six sentences. Xkcdreader (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well that's simply not the case. The subject of the article is the film, not the title of the film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You're pulling my leg right? I know "assume good faith" but this feels like trolling. The subject of the TITLE subsection in the Article, is the TITLE of the movie. The TITLE sections already exists. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is about the subject of the article as a whole, not individual sections. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

---

• Partial outsider opinion time! Xkcdreader, you should stop now. The point of being bold is to introduce a radical change to an article, which can then be discussed if it is controversial. Being bold does not mean disregarding the opinions of others, especially when the others don't agree with you. I stated before that I think the title section should include a reference to the dispute, but I now further that to expand on what I said in a later part of my opinion; this should be a sentence at the very most, referencing Wikipedia in popular culture. The grammatical sensibilities of the title are not a major talking point outside of Wikipedia, with the exception of news articles that refer back to this talk page. We are therefore the source of our own citations. As your name professes, and as you arrived at this article, please read this xkcd comic entitled Citogenesis. We are not denying that you have an opinion, just that your opinion has no weight over consensus; being bold is not the overriding factor in Wikipedia. You are bold, we are simply following WP:BRD, and concluding that your content isn't suitable at this time. whatever you think is standing between your content and inclusion, whether that be undue weight or self-referencing, it is not for you to override community opinion on the grounds of boldness. If the grammar/stylisation of the title were talking points in many other forums, then it may be worth inclusion, but at this time, it is effecting next to no-one outside Wikipedia and xkcd. As the total number of editors on wikipedia is equal to just over a quarter of a percent of the world's population, and xkcd isn't a cultural phenomenon, it is safe to assume that the majority of the world doesn't even know about the existence of this argument. In 1994, a total of over 400,000 people attended Star Trek conventions. Even if we say that that number has remained the same, and that they were all the Star Trek fans in the world, then the total number of editors active on Wikipedia in the last month isn't even equal to half of the known fans. We are not living in a world where everyone is debating this, and it has been decided, for now at least, that it is not notable within the article. Take my advice, and let this subject lay for now. By continuing it, you will just damage your cause should it be debated in the future. drewmunn talk 11:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not disregarding Rob's opinion. I am specifically crediting him with a valid point. I have YET to be bold. I have yet to edit the page. Are you saying I should stop working towards consensus? There is a compromise afloat. (I see no reason to mention wikipedia or wikipedia in popular culture. To do so is irrelevant, and not the issue being discussed.) "The grammatical sensibilities of the title are not a major talking point outside of Wikipedia" is not true. This is a HUGE problem in this debate. Regular wikipedia users keep claiming they were the only ones having the conversation. This wikipedia centric worldview is ridiculous. Over ten citations are provided which discuss the grammar of the title BEFORE WIKIPEDIA BEGAN THE DEBATE. The earliest citation is September 7th. Your point has already been covered and disproven. (And this is why this debate is so long! People keep re-covering the exact same two points. If I dismiss it without explain it again, people claim I am ignoring them. If I re-cover the points, it makes the discussion long. When the discussion is longer nobody reads it. When people don't read it, they chime in and everything starts over. It's a catch-22 and a bad DirecTV commercial. We are talking in circles. All your points have been covered ad nauseum.) "If the grammar/stylization of the title were talking points in many other forums, then it may be worth inclusion" It was, and if you took the time to read the citations, you would see there is ample coverage of the titles grammar. You are accidentally making my point. There was Internet wide coverage of the titles grammar, mention of it SHOULD be included and is NOT WP:UNDUE http://trekmovie.com/2012/09/07/exclusive-star-trek-sequel-title-confirmed// has over 2300 comments discussing the title, and has a conversation that went from September 7th to October 6th. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between mentioning the grammatical oddity, and there being debate about it, and I'm not being Wikipedia-centric. Can you point me to any of your citations that document a debate, rather than mention fuzzy grammar, that occurred before the launch of the Wikipedia debate (I'm not saying there aren't any there, I'm just saying there's too much on the internet for me to find)? "Over 2300" on one site is not necessarily of note on a wider scale. Also, I'm discussing the fact that you're constantly referring to boldness throughout your argument; you aren't particularly developing your reasoning, and although I understand that others support you (I support the inclusion in some manner), there is considerable weight against you. Not UNDUE-style weight, just guidelines and the such. Boldness is taking action, which editors have done in the past. Their changes were reverted, so this is technically a bog-standard proposal, the outcome of which should not be bold. We've gone past the B and R of WP:BRD, and now we're on D. Your discussions are going around in circles, with fairly slow progress being mostly driven by the other editors. Stepping back may be the best plan on your part, and let the others fight it out; I have no problem with the proposal's existence, more that you are causing much of the issues that are lengthening this debate. I have not been watching this page since leaving the discussions for a break after xkcd-gate, but since watching it this morning (accidentally after adding the section below), all I've seen in edits are people debating with you. Rob has made a valid point above, in that the article is about the film; the point of the title subsection has been up for debate a little in the past, but the most important thing to note is that we should fly off on a tangent. The content of the title subsection is about releasing the title to the public and how it affects the film. I personally feel mentioning the debate is too wide a tangent, unless it is a concise mention of the existence, but not going into semantics. That is where Wikipedia in popular culture comes in. xkcd is worth a mention there, and we should link to it (in my opinion). However, the content of the debate is not (again, my opinion) a wide enough subject. I'm not being parochial here, I'm using facts. I've put in some quite extensive effort researching the blacklash from the title around the web, and have come to the conclusion that it's barely a drop in the ocean of life. Finally, I'd like to point out that I do take the time to read citations. I also take the time to repeatedly read through this entire discussion, and every related one, as I have since beginning contributing on this article last year. I also read masses of online documentation, compile evidence for and against the previous debates, and search out other people's conclusions; heck, I even have an algorithm for the purpose of keeping me up to date on this bloody film. "Over 10 citations" does not prove something is notable to the wider world, it's the quality of those citations, and the relevance of them in regards to the overall picture that matters. My personal opinion on this matter is that of an informed participant (prev bystander, prev prev participant), and is that you at least should step back for a time. Let your proposal run its course, and let other editors help bring it to a conclusion; you are going in circles. drewmunn talk 12:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"I personally feel mentioning the debate is too wide a tangent, unless it is a concise mention of the existence." To keep this quick. Please scroll up to the top of the "Proposed "Title" Section into Darkness" and read "Proposal Part Two:" I am going to bold this to make a point other people see, I promise am not yelling at you! THERE IS ONLY ONE SENTENCE IN THE PARAGRAPH (which is six sentences long) that MENTIONS/REFERENCES/ADDRESSES THE DEBATE. It doesn't even say the words wikipedia. This is intentional so the subject matter is handled deftly. Rob Sinden is claiming one sentence is WP:UNDUE. "xkcd is worth a mention there" It was initially mentioned in the proposal and a couple people continually fought to have it removed. That is consensus for you. We came to a compromise. It is currently used as a citation instead. I am not being condescending when I say this, but will you please go back, and read through the actual proposed text two or three times? Maybe four or five? Look at what it actually says. It's not about the debate. The debate is an INCREDIIBLY minor tangent point. The paragraph is constructed, and spends six sentences, analyzing the grammatical oddity of the title. The fact that the title is grammatically odd is WELL established. Thanks for taking the time to type out your thoughts. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me try and provide some context. First, I am not trying to point fingers here. This is merely what everything looks like from my perspective. Overall most editors have made significant contributions to whittle this proposal down to its current point. It has been rewritten over and over and over and over and over. Editors like Frungi, Nsign, Fletcher have gone on record stating why they oppose things, and we come to a compromise. The paragraph wouldn't read anywhere near as elegantly without their help. Both sides have made concessions to each other. Two people specifically, Rob Sinden and Scjessey offer no compromise or middle ground. The same behavior is what led to the initial i|I debate. They do not budge an inch and hint they will revert any edit made, just to establish consensus as exclusion. When I asked for fresh voices, those two users reiterated their same points that had been already covered. I will give Rob Sinden's argument credit. He is not wrong per se. There is a differing of opinion over what constitutes due weight. His argument has supporters, as does the counterargument. I read through everyone comments and tallied the criticisms. Currently four people (MisterShiney, Rob Sinden, Scjessey, Fletcher) have opposed due to WP:UNDUE and SIX voted to include it as written (douts, Eraserhead1, Pfhorrest, David93, Xkcdreader). I am not tallying the "other arguments" because they have been discussed to death and I think most people agree would agree WP:UNDUE/WP/FANCRUFT is the only legitimate point of contention over the text itself. Some users are citing WP:SELFREF, but as we discussed it is NOT a circular reference, so this argument is wrong. So to "summarize" (which Rob has been asking me not to do). Scjessey has a whole list of complaints (verbose, weasel words, impenetrable language, low-quality sourcing, pointless discussion about the "debate", far too many references) which multiple people addressed as invalid. He then reiterates the same points over again without listening to anyone elses argument. As such, communication has broken down between Scjessey and I am no longer able to interact with him in any meaningful way. I will leave that to other editors. This is getting long again. The MAIN problem we are having is when two people will be talking and Rob Sinden or Scjessey interject themselves into the conversation and derail it with tangent points. I respect Rob Sinden and have asked him to stay involved in the discussion so we can reach consensus. We both just need to work on not talking in circles. I have given up discussing anything with Scjessey. Neither of us are able to communicate with each other in any meaningful way, and to continue to interact is futile and counterproductive. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop acting like an uninvolved admin! You can't decide whose opinions to count and whose not to! Again, by summarising, you've completely misrepresented the arguments, and left out the opinion of 4-5 people who disagree with you, and a couple of fence-sitters. You really need to be kept in check. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and User:Scjessey isn't the problem here. He's a responsible and established editor. I feel his frustration. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is establishing the validity of an argument. Scjessey's argument has been established as invalid by MULTIPLE PEOPLE. No one else is forwarding his arguments. I am not discounting him by myself. I said I have chose to no longer communicate with him. I find it very disrespectful that you think I am incapable of taking an impartial role in measuring consensus. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a single one of your summaries is without bias, this one included. You cannot be expected to be impartial when you're fighting for the inclusion of something, so don't try to be. And just because you and Scjessey can't play nice, doesn't make his opinion less important than yours. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And reading Scjesssey's "oppose" !vote above, his response seems concise and well-reasoned. It's your response telling him that his opinion doesn't matter which seems to be the problem. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Instead of continually making this claim, back it up. Go back, read the debate, and find the opinions you think I am leaving out. If you believe the summary is inaccurate, offer a counter summary. I left out things like Oppose - pretentious, or oppose- xkcdreader sucks because they are stupid arguments without validity. I also said, Scjessey's arguments are invalid AND we can't play nice. Not because we can't play nice. His arguments were debunked by multiple people, and no counter arguments were given. They are invalid arguments. Go back and read the entire post if you want. Read the REPLIES to his oppose. They point by point explain why each one is wrong. No counter argument was provided, just repetition. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

His arguments are valid in my book. Just because he chooses not to rise to your baiting does not give you the right to claim their invalidity. You really don't understand how this works do you? You are not the judge here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And considering your tone of response, I'm not surprised he left it at that. Oh - and it was just you that replied to him, not "multiple people"! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The real world will comment on the film, and maybe the title, when it's released in three months. If Ebert's review makes a big deal about the grammar of the title, it can be mentioned in the Reception section then. Now, not even Memory Alpha mentions this "controversy". 202.81.249.209 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There is only one sentence regarding the controversy. One sentence. The controversy is only mentioned in passing to put the final sentence of the paragraph into context.

No - I'm not claiming one sentence is WP:UNDUE, I'm claiming the whole bloody lot is WP:UNDUE. To my mind there is no way that any of it belongs here, and if I could see the references I could check, but I suspect that a lot of it is WP:SYNTHESIS too, and that the references do not back up the "months of discussions" claim anywhere other than Wikipedia, which we've already established as unacceptable per WP:SUBJECT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Rob, consensus has been established earlier that this should be mentioned - so it will eventually be added to the article at some point. So perhaps rather than continually trying to block it outright, maybe you could help us to reach a version that you feel is acceptable. If not this is only gonna end at mediation, which is likely to find in favour of adding some, if not all, of what has been suggested. We are trying to reach a compromise, but it's incredibly difficult to do so without constructive input from both sides. douts (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see the consensus for inclusion - if anything I see the opposite. I think you may have been misled by Xkcdreader's periodic biased summaries that misrepresent the views of other editors and claim consensus when in fact none has been reached. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Opposition is not the same thing as valid opposition. When someone opposes their reason must have validity. When a group of people take the claim and debunk it, the opposition vote no longer counts towards consensus. Consensus is not a vote. (We are to the point where consensus does not exist because Rob Sinden can't find it, not because it doesnt exist.) Xkcdreader (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You fall by your own argument. You claim that Scjessey's opinion doesn't count because you disagreed with it! You claim to have debunked it, yet your so-called "debunking" of it is not the "valid opposition" you think it is. His points remain valid. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The conversations happened multiple times. I was probably the only one left replying to him, because we were talking in circles and I didn't know better. (Remember the part where I said, let's get some new voices, and he chimed in again with the same old arguments.) His points have been debunked. I am sorry you can't find them in this mess, or choose not to understand the counter argument. Putting your fingers in your ears is not a solution. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to say who can comment on your proposals. You put forward a new proposal, and he, I, and other editors who had contributed before, commented on this new proposal. Just because you disagreed with him in the past does not discount his opinion. His points have not been "debunked", as they are valid points and remain us such. His concerns over the addition of this proposal are very real and sensible. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Go right back to MisterShiney's original post entitled "Wikipedia Section" - the overriding feeling (and yes, there are some objections) is that some mention of the confusion and discussion caused by the title should be mentioned. As for the summaries, I havnt even looked at them - i've just been reading the actual comments by editors. douts (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Again. This has been covered multiple times. At least 5. ad nauseum. One more cant hurt? The subject of the first sentence is the titles ambiguous nature not the debate. WP:SUBJECT is an invalid argument. Just because XKCD/DailyDot mention wikipedia does not make them invalid secondary/tertiary sources. The "months of discussion" can be used to put the TOPIC of the sentence into context. WP:SUBJECT is used to keep on topic, not to invalidate any possible mention of wikipedia. This argument should NOT be brought up again. It has been covered too many times. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We clearly do have to go over this again and again and again, as you don't seem to grasp how this works. Where does a source back up your claim that the film's ambiguous title has caused months of debate? Where has this debate taken place? Which people questioned whether "trek" was a verb or a noun? etc., etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No we don't. Your inability to find it does not mean it wasn't covered. The Daily Dot article explains everything. It goes into the nature of the ambiguity. Yes it is talking about wikipedia. No it is not invalid because of WP:SUBJECT just because wikipedia is the topic. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly why it's invalid. The Daily Dot article[1] is explicitly and specifically about Wikipedia, and thus falls foul of WP:SUBJECT. What part of this don't you understand? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We can't keep talking in circles. This was decided eons ago. The article is about THE AMBIGUITY OF THE TITLE AND wikipedia's stupid response. It is a valid source on the topic of the ambiguity of the title. Consensus was the daily dot is a valid source we just cant use it to create a sentence where the topic is the debate itself, or it would violate subject. Xkcdreader (talk)

What planet are you on? This article is about a film! Although that's easy to forget considering this talk page. And there is no consensus to violate WP:UNDUE or WP:SUBJECT, so we cannot include the Daily Dot reference. Did you decide this in the same way that you decided Scjessey's opinion was not valid? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, hang on - you're agreeing that we can't use the daily dot reference "to create a sentence where the topic is the debate itself", and yet that's what you're trying do do. I don't get where you're coming from at all. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Xkcdreader - please can you fix the references on your proposal to enable us to pick it apart piece by piece. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am working on rewriting on this as we speak, to take into accounts your wp:undue criticism. Hopefully we can come to a temporary compromise over what wp:undue is, put that in the article, and then work from there. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• GUYS I think it's time we just took this to mediation/dispute resolution - whichever is more appropriate. We're getting nowhere here. Although I have no idea how to start said process. douts (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Xkcdreader - no one doubts you are acting in good faith to try and improve the article but this is getting out of hand. If you can find a way to cut this down to 2 or 3 succinct and relevant sentences then it will have a chance of going in. If you can't, it won't. I may share your opinion with regards to the behaviour of certain editors here (and I'd direct anyone to my talk page for evidence of said behaviour) but the fact stands that you believe this is worthy of a fairly verbose mention in the article, while others do not. I don't think it will be resolved soon because of this difference in opinion so I'd advise against posting reams of further paragraphs here - you will not win any support by doing so and will probably harm your case. I think douts is correct in suggesting mediation. Nsign (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for some fresh eyes over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That has gone from absurd to hyper-surreal (also I'm sorry, and again in advance)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First off, I am sorry. I really am. Like really really. I fell way out of line. I should not have come here and tried to contribute. Using the way I got here as a name was a bad idea (I didn't know about that rule.) I shouldn't have gotten so passionate. I should have taken more breaks. I shouldn't save my edit so often and hog the history. 'I shouldn't argue in circles I could continue to list my mistakes ad nauseum :) for your viewing pleasure But... In my mind this grew into a way bigger issue than twelve stupid sentences. Personally, it had become a matter of principle. Moreso because it was about Star Trek, and Star Trek is about the pursuit of knowledge. It literally confuses me that we prefer not to allow people to determine what they consider interesting for themselves. But that is for another conversation about WP:UNDUE and not appropriate here. Nothing will EVER GET DONE AGAIN on wikipedia if this type of behavior is allowed from either side. (/s /drama) There is always some rule to prevent a person from contributing. There is always a guideline. There is always an essay. It took administrators to capitalize this article. I tried to add 6-12 sentences to this article and was blocked at every attempt. But usually for good reason. All the people telling me I was wrong helped turn an ok block of text into a pretty good one. Eventually through lots of debate we reached consensus on the first five sentences. The sixth sentence is a fun little anecdote. It makes the paragraph better. It is entire unnecessary. But it should be included anyway out of principle. What kind of encyclopedia errs on the side of exclusion over having twelve extra sentences in an article? Or one sentence for that matter? What kind of sick person spends thousands of words defending their position? What have you done to me Wikipedia? This is the i|I debate all over again. For some insane reason the general consensus on Wikipedia is to do nothing and argue about it forever. It doesn't help that the talk pages are an awful way to have a conversation. This NEEDS to be threaded like reddit. People need to be able to reply without refreshing the page. Edit conflicts. Ugh. Who in their right mind would ever come here to contribute. You have to spend all your time explaining yourself, and with no time left for writing content. The spirit of WP:BEBOLD is nowhere to be seen, for you need to appease EVERYBODY. Someone will always spearhead a blocking maneuver. Nothing will ever change. Someday we will start to argue if empty pages are better than ones with text. So I have decided 2 things. First, it is time to cool down for a minute. Second, (because consensus was reached in a near unanimous fashion) I am going to GO BOLDLY where I have never gone before and put the non-controvercial entry into the page. I really hope this doesn't start an edit war. It shouldn't. This is the product of the last few days of work. It reads as follows. On September 10th, 2012, Paramount confirmed the film's title as Star Trek Into Darkness. J. J. Abrams indicated that unlike the The Original Series films and yet in line with The Next Generation film series, his second Star Trek film would not include a number in the title. The decision was made to avoid repeating the sequel numbering that started with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan or making a confusing jump from Star Trek to Star Trek 12. Writer and producer Damon Lindelof addressed his team's struggle to settle upon a title, stating "there have been more conversations about what we're going to call it than went into actually shooting it." "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." Of the email chain co-writers kept containing every potential title, including many joke titles, Lindelof preferred Star Trek: Transformers 4 best "because it's technically available." Just like how the colon represents everything people hate about Star Trek (Damon Lindelof's words not mine, do I really need to cite this?) the i|I represents everything people hate about Wikipedia. Just like how they spent more time debating the title than making the movie .... We.... Oh my god.. (Like I said, hyper absurd and meta even. Does this say something more about the human condition than it does wikipedia/jjabrams crew? Are our entire lives just spend chasing each others tails?) In it's own way I hope this issue is a call to arms of sorts, so that this place can start to function again. Again, I take full responsibility for my nauseating conduct. I'm super sorry. I can understand why people wouldn't want to work with people possessing such passionate attitudes. This has been a learning experience, and an introspective one at that. And in the end isn't that what encyclopedias are for? And Star Trek? Xkcdreader (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC) PS: Remember, no matter how historic this message becomes (/s) you can never write about it on wikipedia, because I posted it here first and not in a newspaper, per rules 1, 7, 9 and eleventythousand. That paragraph looks fine to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Same. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I don't have any major issues with incorporating this version with what we already have. Maybe it's a little unnecessary, but in the spirit of compromise, willing to concede. Watch the formatting though - there seem to be some italics missing! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I don't understand. Why would we incorporate this into the old version? I just replaced the old one. Both would be completely redundant except for the unnecessary Conan reference. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Put it in. Then let's move on and hope that the next big debate will be about something that happens in the film. Nsign (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I propose we go for 'is Benedict Cumberbatch's hair black or really dark brown?' What do you think? :-) drewmunn talk 17:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I personally think it's OK as is in the article now, it was just the method of getting there that I found headache-inducing (that, and the possible self referencing). However, you've apologised from that, and shown you're willing to learn. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you can start afresh after this debacle (not the greatest place to start off, this article. No matter what you said, there'd probably be people bearing down on you. It's one of those 'articles of the moment'). Anyway, who wants some nice warm marmalade on toast? Doing my bit to dispel English stereotyping. drewmunn talk 17:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps its worth closing the section and the longer one above, to finally put a lid on it all? I would do it myself - but I don't know how. douts (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Done! For future reference, you can add {{hat}} to the top of the section (below the title), and {{hab}} at the bottom. drewmunn talk 19:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Will the hatting be stripped when these discussions are archived? I see no reason for them to stay hatted once in the archives... -sche (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I don’t believe so, but it would be nice if possible. —Frungi (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Mizabot removes the compression, but it's always possible we could; 10 days after the last comment, the section will be archived, so someone could do it manually after then if you wanted. drewmunn talk 07:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hats off (lol/groan...) to Sarek. Thanks for archiving all those discussions, and for de-hatting them. -sche (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)