1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

mcdigman
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:32 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby mcdigman » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:57 pm UTC

Just today the number of words has probably nearly doubled: also this doesn't include the fact that the discussion has spilled over into the talk page for the manual of style and several other pages.

User avatar
TimXCampbell
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:26 am UTC
Location: Very Eastern Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby TimXCampbell » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:16 pm UTC

amulshah7 wrote:It looks like magnificent is spelled incorrectly in the second panel. It should be 'magnificent,' but it looks like 'magnificient' to me.

Good eye! I'd completely missed that!

P.S. I've just about given up hope that one day I'll know how to correctly capitalize titles.

P.P.S. I wonder what kind of debates they have in Japan about the use of kana or kanji in certain contexts. What's more, they sometimes just drop English words (with Romanized letters) straight into things. And here we are debating about our relatively simple typography.
Last edited by TimXCampbell on Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:23 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Adam H » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:20 pm UTC

I rebelliously capitalize every word in titles. It looks better and it's easier than remembering what "prepositions" are. :P
-Adam

User avatar
San Fran Sam
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby San Fran Sam » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:30 pm UTC

philsov wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:
Red Hal wrote:Keming.


ffffuuuu.png


I came here to post pretty much the same thing.


and it's sequel

Star Trek: The Kerning Rebellion

User avatar
SerMufasa
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:00 pm UTC
Location: Casterley Rock

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby SerMufasa » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:28 pm UTC

I look forward to BHG donating $1 million to a recipient based on the resolution of this debate. As of moment of theatrical wide release, if it's "i" the money will go to pro-choice activists, if it's "I" the money will go to pro-life activists.
"Winter is Coming, Simba"

Tova
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:44 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Tova » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:19 pm UTC

San Fran Sam wrote:and it's sequel


Just to prove that there are more important things to take care of than title caps versus initial caps. :P

exoren22
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:30 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby exoren22 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:49 pm UTC

SerMufasa wrote:I look forward to BHG donating $1 million to a recipient based on the resolution of this debate. As of moment of theatrical wide release, if it's "i" the money will go to pro-choice activists, if it's "I" the money will go to pro-life activists.


Can we switch these? Because I have my horse in the choice/life debate, and I think I know how the title one ends.

As a sidenote, I have determined that DonQuixote is the PERFECT troll (GUIZE! LOOK AT HIS NAME! Also he is clearly trolling) but this Rob Sinden character is just plain certifiably insane and CLEARLY hates the new Star Trek "reboot" (if you don't know why those quotes are there, please get out).

User avatar
jc
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby jc » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:56 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:I rebelliously capitalize every word in titles. It looks better and it's easier than remembering what "prepositions" are. :P

Watch out, there are these fonts called "Title Caps" that some publishers like to use with people like you. ;-) This reintroduces the big/little distinction in text that you think is all capital letters.

And the "preposition" thing is a nice example of a totally bogus linguistic analysis of a language. Those things that the peevers don't want you to end a sentence with? They aren't prepositions at all; they're a kind of adverb (because they modify the meaning of the verb), and in all the Germanic languages, they regularly go at the end of the phrase/clause/sentence. They are related to prepositions, because they have a similar relationship function, but they're a different word class that your grade school teachers thought you were too dumb to understand (although you probably used them correctly in your speech by first grade). They have several names; "adverbial particle" is a common one.

If you study German, you'll likely learn to call them "separable prefixes", because in German, infinitives have them attached as prefixes. English doesn't do this, though, and normally puts them after all verb forms, so a different term is needed.

There's a theory that calling these adverbs "prepositions" and objecting to their end-phrase position is a relic of the days when the truly "educated" studied Latin and Greek, and normally didn't write in the uncouth "common" languages. Latin and Greek had no adverb syntax like this, so obviously it was wrong in all languages. Attitudes like that can take centuries to go away. Our education system still mostly teaches Latin grammar in the English classes, pretending that it's also English grammar, resulting in the widespread misunderstandings about how the English language actually works. You can find much better gammars for English if you look at textbooks for teaching English to non-English speakers. But you might not understand them unless you can read the other language.

pareidolon
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:59 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby pareidolon » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:33 pm UTC

Gah, the horror! This forum has become an argument about Star Trek [:][I/i]nto Darkness and the Start Trek into Darkness talk page has grown a lengthy argument about XKCD!

The worst thing about this edit war is that currently everything on the talk page relates to title policy, and a large amount of the archives do as well.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:41 pm UTC

I'm kinda hoping the discussion will spiral out of control so that even most mainstream media will acknowledge it and eventually the movie people will make some sort of statement that it is (or isn't) a subtitle to solve the crisis.

And yes, I'm hoping for this scenario simply because of Shadefreude.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2901
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby orthogon » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:02 pm UTC

Tova wrote:
San Fran Sam wrote:and it's sequel


Just to prove that there are more important things to take care of than title caps versus initial caps. :P

There's a place for you to have that one out too: the talk page for "its"on Wiktionary. That debate that has been running since the late 16th Century.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4685
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:36 pm UTC

Klear wrote:I'm kinda hoping the discussion will spiral out of control so that even most mainstream media will acknowledge it and eventually the movie people will make some sort of statement that it is (or isn't) a subtitle to solve the crisis.

I think that's about the only possible resolution, because one single pun in an official synopsis seems enough to convince the sticklers there that we absolutely MUST assume it is not a subtitle pending further evidence, and I can't imagine what other evidence they would consider and not dismiss as OR or SYNTH if every poster, trailer, etc, released thus far don't count. Paramount or Abrams basically have to say "It's the twelfth Star Trek movie, subtitled Into Darkness, we just never use colons for any Star Trek media, and the synopsis just has a clever pun in it that doesn't mean anything", or else these people are going to play the "My interpretation is the default one we have to assume unless conclusively disproven by word of god, your interpretation is baseless original research and synthesis" game forever.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

hughperkins
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:47 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby hughperkins » Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:54 am UTC

There is no incentive for the sTAR tREK producers to clarify the issue, since it's an absolutely dream viral advertising campaign, by accident.

I mean, I for one didn't know about the existence of the film until the cartoon yesterday, but here I am, compulsively F5ing this thread!

(Edit: Hmmmm: maybe they can tell people the solution will be at the end of the film, but everyone has to sign an NDA before they're allowed to see the film )

Mirkwood
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:10 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Mirkwood » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:10 am UTC

Write all words with capitals, except if it looks more aesthetically pleasing to leave a word uncapitalized. I call this the "aesthetics rule". The aesthetics rule is subject to the fromage corollary, though, in that if the title contains the name of a French dish involving cheese, any words starting with the letter D should be left uncapitalized, as in Omelette du Fromage.

...what, you mean that's not standard usage?

jiminspace
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:18 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby jiminspace » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:22 am UTC

+1 for colon sub-title. I'm not about to wage into the talk page, but it is annoying that the "into"s are winning. I can't imagine people ever intended the MOS to conflict w/ the artistic intent of creators.

hughperkins
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:47 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby hughperkins » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:34 am UTC

Shouldn't that be 'omelette *au* fromage'? Did I just get whooshed?

Rotherian
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:57 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Rotherian » Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:29 am UTC

hughperkins wrote:Shouldn't that be 'omelette *au* fromage'? Did I just get whooshed?


Yes, it should be au, not du. Omelette du fromage comes from an episode of Dexter's Laboratory. (And an accompanying internet meme related to the episode.)
There are two general categories of opinion: regular opinions and informed opinions.
Please do not argue with me unless your opinion falls into the latter category.
Image

wurlitzer153
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby wurlitzer153 » Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:38 am UTC

This just in:

Somebody finally fixed the I. Let's see if it sticks....

I've repeatedly threatened to execute this move so I've now done so. I believe this is in keeping with the BRD cycle and the page is not currently protected. I will not engage in any edit-warring over the matter. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7550
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby phlip » Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:05 am UTC

pololoco wrote:...Not that I think there's a problem with the semantics, but what does she mean "THEY SHOULD HAVE SENT A POET" ? They who? And sent Into (sorry :P ) where...the forums?

It's a movie quote.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

pandroid
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:33 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby pandroid » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:24 am UTC

Well, it finally drew some people with a sense of humor to the talk page:

I don't see why we can't just go with the obvious, common-sense title: Star Trek Reboot 2: Antimatter Boogaloo. I'll go ahead and move the page. (WP:BOLD!) -- Narsil (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with slight modification. I think we should change it to Star Wars Unto Darkness. I personally like Star Wars better, and I don't think it's hard to see why we should prefer this. Even George Takei started out acting for Star Trek and later decided to switch to voice acting for Star Wars, which should tell you something. -- 173.105.255.47 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

User avatar
zjxs
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:04 am UTC
Location: The Cloud

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby zjxs » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:28 am UTC

Usefully enough, R-Bloggers just published this script for visualising conversational intensity on Wikipedia talk threads http://www.r-bloggers.com/visualizing-threaded-conversation-volume-and-intensity/.

I used to go in for geographical naming disputes. For a very long time 'China' didn't direct you to the world's most populous country, but a page about historic empires. There are plenty of other disputes where some nerds in North America and a politically driven POV-pusher sit together to prevent pages for places pointing to what the rest of the world consider to be the official and common names for countries. Myanmar/Burma is one such example. I just sit and watch with dumbfounded amusement these days.

User avatar
Davidy
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:18 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Davidy » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:24 am UTC

To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty, "[as a writer] When I spell a word, I spell it the way I want to spell it, neither more nor less."
"It's only funny until someone loses an eye, then it's still funny but they can only see it in 2-D."

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5093
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Xeio » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:32 am UTC

wurlitzer153 wrote:This just in:

Somebody finally fixed the I. Let's see if it sticks....

I've repeatedly threatened to execute this move so I've now done so. I believe this is in keeping with the BRD cycle and the page is not currently protected. I will not engage in any edit-warring over the matter. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hooray for sane admins.

I still think it should have a colon, but hey, at least Wikipedia isn't the only site on the internet to capitalize it wrong anymore.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 877
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby da Doctah » Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:35 am UTC

exoren22 wrote:this Rob Sinden character is just plain certifiably insane and CLEARLY hates the new Star Trek "reboot" (if you don't know why those quotes are there, please get out).

Wait. You mean everybody wore the same old boots from the original TV series?

hughperkins
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:47 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby hughperkins » Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:40 am UTC

Sooo.... can we rename this thread? :D

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:15 am UTC

Awesome. XKCD actually fixed wikipedia. They argued about it for over a month and 24 hours after the comic comes out it is fixed. (if it will last, that is).

XKCD is usually a pretty bad influence on wikipedia, but in this case the attention has been beneficial... cool.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2901
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby orthogon » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:52 am UTC

TimXCampbell wrote:
amulshah7 wrote:It looks like magnificent is spelled incorrectly in the second panel. It should be 'magnificent,' but it looks like 'magnificient' to me.

Good eye! I'd completely missed that!

"magnificient" is probably a portmanteau (magnificent+inefficient?), if not a full-blown malamanteau.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Muhahahahaz
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:19 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Muhahahahaz » Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:10 pm UTC

hughperkins wrote:Sooo.... can we rename this thread? :D


Definitely! I'm going to invoke xkcd:RM here.

Discuss. :wink:

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:17 pm UTC

Muhahahahaz wrote:
hughperkins wrote:Sooo.... can we rename this thread? :D


Definitely! I'm going to invoke xkcd:RM here.

Discuss. :wink:


I'm torn. The name of the comic, and thus of the thread, should reflect the name of the article on wikipedia. On the other hand, the lower-case i here can be taken to be referring to the state of the wikipedia article prior to the latest move, and as such it is deliberately incorrect.

Also take into consideration xkcd:MOS. (third question from the bottom)

I think we need to reach a consensus here, before making any rash changes.

Rotherian
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:57 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Rotherian » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Muhahahahaz wrote:
hughperkins wrote:Sooo.... can we rename this thread? :D


Definitely! I'm going to invoke xkcd:RM here.

Discuss. :wink:


I'm torn. The name of the comic, and thus of the thread, should reflect the name of the article on wikipedia. On the other hand, the lower-case i here can be taken to be referring to the state of the wikipedia article prior to the latest move, and as such it is deliberately incorrect.

Also take into consideration xkcd:MOS. (third question from the bottom)

I think we need to reach a consensus here, before making any rash changes.


SUPPORT. We should not allow it to be said that xkcd dwells overmuch on the past. As new information is acquired, so should our understanding. Keeping the small i would result in intellectual stagnation. [citation needed]
There are two general categories of opinion: regular opinions and informed opinions.
Please do not argue with me unless your opinion falls into the latter category.
Image

rmsgrey
Posts: 3378
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:56 pm UTC

Rotherian wrote:
Klear wrote:
Muhahahahaz wrote:
hughperkins wrote:Sooo.... can we rename this thread? :D


Definitely! I'm going to invoke xkcd:RM here.

Discuss. :wink:


I'm torn. The name of the comic, and thus of the thread, should reflect the name of the article on wikipedia. On the other hand, the lower-case i here can be taken to be referring to the state of the wikipedia article prior to the latest move, and as such it is deliberately incorrect.

Also take into consideration xkcd:MOS. (third question from the bottom)

I think we need to reach a consensus here, before making any rash changes.


SUPPORT. We should not allow it to be said that xkcd dwells overmuch on the past. As new information is acquired, so should our understanding. Keeping the small i would result in intellectual stagnation. [citation needed]


OPPOSE. xkcd is a series of contemporary documents, so should continue to reflect the time of publication, not any developments since. Electoral Precedent has not been updated to reflect subsequent events, so we should not break precedent here.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2901
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby orthogon » Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:15 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:[...] Electoral Precedent has not been updated to reflect subsequent events, so we should not break precedent here.

You're citing "Electoral Precedent" as a precedent? Now that is ironic. I think.

[EDIT: s/quot/cit]
Last edited by orthogon on Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:22 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Rotherian wrote:
Klear wrote:
Muhahahahaz wrote:
hughperkins wrote:Sooo.... can we rename this thread? :D


Definitely! I'm going to invoke xkcd:RM here.

Discuss. :wink:


I'm torn. The name of the comic, and thus of the thread, should reflect the name of the article on wikipedia. On the other hand, the lower-case i here can be taken to be referring to the state of the wikipedia article prior to the latest move, and as such it is deliberately incorrect.

Also take into consideration xkcd:MOS. (third question from the bottom)

I think we need to reach a consensus here, before making any rash changes.


SUPPORT. We should not allow it to be said that xkcd dwells overmuch on the past. As new information is acquired, so should our understanding. Keeping the small i would result in intellectual stagnation. [citation needed]


OPPOSE. xkcd is a series of contemporary documents, so should continue to reflect the time of publication, not any developments since. Electoral Precedent has not been updated to reflect subsequent events, so we should not break precedent here.


COMMENT: There is a lot of secondary sources reporting about the comic and all of them (AFAIK) cite the title of the comic as it is - with lower-case i. Changing it into upper-case could be considered a breach of xkcd:OR (or not - something tells me that xkcd supports original research) It could be argued, though, that these secondary sources reported the title before the change of the wikipedia article...


BTW, the discussion has already spilled into IMDb message board.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3378
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:45 pm UTC

Klear wrote:COMMENT: There is a lot of secondary sources reporting about the comic and all of them (AFAIK) cite the title of the comic as it is - with lower-case i. Changing it into upper-case could be considered a breach of xkcd:OR (or not - something tells me that xkcd supports original research) It could be argued, though, that these secondary sources reported the title before the change of the wikipedia article...

So you're saying that the current title is verifiable in secondary sources? It must be correct then!

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:55 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Klear wrote:COMMENT: There is a lot of secondary sources reporting about the comic and all of them (AFAIK) cite the title of the comic as it is - with lower-case i. Changing it into upper-case could be considered a breach of xkcd:OR (or not - something tells me that xkcd supports original research) It could be argued, though, that these secondary sources reported the title before the change of the wikipedia article...

So you're saying that the current title is verifiable in secondary sources? It must be correct then!


I'm not sure if the sources are reliable per xkcd:Notability, though. I haven't examined them in detail, but somehow I doubt they are all peer-reviewed.

doinkisaac
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:17 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby doinkisaac » Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:40 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
Rotherian wrote:
Klear wrote:
Muhahahahaz wrote:
hughperkins wrote:Sooo.... can we rename this thread? :D


Definitely! I'm going to invoke xkcd:RM here.

Discuss. :wink:


I'm torn. The name of the comic, and thus of the thread, should reflect the name of the article on wikipedia. On the other hand, the lower-case i here can be taken to be referring to the state of the wikipedia article prior to the latest move, and as such it is deliberately incorrect.

Also take into consideration xkcd:MOS. (third question from the bottom)

I think we need to reach a consensus here, before making any rash changes.


SUPPORT. We should not allow it to be said that xkcd dwells overmuch on the past. As new information is acquired, so should our understanding. Keeping the small i would result in intellectual stagnation. [citation needed]


OPPOSE. xkcd is a series of contemporary documents, so should continue to reflect the time of publication, not any developments since. Electoral Precedent has not been updated to reflect subsequent events, so we should not break precedent here.


COMMENT: There is a lot of secondary sources reporting about the comic and all of them (AFAIK) cite the title of the comic as it is - with lower-case i. Changing it into upper-case could be considered a breach of xkcd:OR (or not - something tells me that xkcd supports original research) It could be argued, though, that these secondary sources reported the title before the change of the wikipedia article...


BTW, the discussion has already spilled into IMDb message board.

Query: This meatbag is an incoherent babble of useless information. Can I shoot him?
(Oh, we're not quoting HK-47 now? Coulda fooled me :P wait, what's the proper usage of emoticons at the end of parentheticals? ":))" looks nasty)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3378
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:55 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
Klear wrote:COMMENT: There is a lot of secondary sources reporting about the comic and all of them (AFAIK) cite the title of the comic as it is - with lower-case i. Changing it into upper-case could be considered a breach of xkcd:OR (or not - something tells me that xkcd supports original research) It could be argued, though, that these secondary sources reported the title before the change of the wikipedia article...

So you're saying that the current title is verifiable in secondary sources? It must be correct then!


I'm not sure if the sources are reliable per xkcd:Notability, though. I haven't examined them in detail, but somehow I doubt they are all peer-reviewed.


You only need one reliable source to establish notability. Verifiability is another matter...

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Роберт » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:18 pm UTC

Comment - That this move has taken place without first establishing a consensus (per policy) is a disgrace. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Drama queen!
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

bluon
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby bluon » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:42 pm UTC

I think the debate should be reframed on this. Instead of Star Trek into Darkness vs Star Trek Into Darkness, I'd say it should be changed to Star Trek into Darkness vs Star Trek: Into Darkness. If Wikipedia is concerned about internal consistency and if Into Darkness is really a subtitle, then there should be some sort of separator to signify this. Colons are what they have used historically for that, so seems like that's the way to go.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:50 pm UTC

bluon wrote:I think the debate should be reframed on this. Instead of Star Trek into Darkness vs Star Trek Into Darkness, I'd say it should be changed to Star Trek into Darkness vs Star Trek: Into Darkness. If Wikipedia is concerned about internal consistency and if Into Darkness is really a subtitle, then there should be some sort of separator to signify this. Colons are what they have used historically for that, so seems like that's the way to go.


But wouldn't it be so much more fun to have the argument spill to the pages of all previous Star Trek movies and series where wikipedia added the colon in an effort to remove them?


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests