Jump to content

WikipediaStar Trek Into Darknessdebate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikipediaStar Trek Into Darknessdebate
Part of theWikipedia controversies
The beginning of the discussion and the table of contents showing the sections created during it.
DateDecember 1, 2012 – January 31, 2013(2012-12-01–2013-01-31)
Caused byDispute over capitalization ofStar Trek Into Darknesspage title
Resulted inConsensus to render the article title asStar Trek Into Darkness

From December 1, 2012, until January 31, 2013, a stylistic disagreement unfolded betweeneditorson theEnglish-language Wikipediaas to whether the word "into" in the title of the Wikipedia article for the 2013 filmStar Trek Into Darknessshould be capitalized. More than 40,000 words were written on the article's talk page (a page for editors to discuss changes to the article) before aconsensuswas reached to capitalize the "I".

Debate

[edit]

DirectorJ. J. Abramsplanned to release the filmStar Trek Into Darknessin April 2013. Its title did not contain acolonafter "Star Trek", such as inStar Trek II: The Wrath of Khanand eight otherStar Trekfilms.The "I" was to be capitalized in Abrams's April release, but Wikipedia'smanual of stylestipulates thatprepositionsfewer than five letters are not to be capitalized.[1]

The full discussion which would decide if Wikipedia should lowercase or uppercase the "I" in the word "into" in the film's title unfolded at the article's talk page from December 1, 2012, to January 9, 2013, and then was picked up again from January 13 to January 31, 2013. The dispute to either adhere to or make an exception to Wikipedia's guideline stretched to over 40,000 words.[2]

A major area of the debate concerned whether or not "Into Darkness" was asubtitleofStar Trek Into Darkness,which was not clear without the colon.[3]If it were a subtitle, as with every otherStar Trekfilm with a title longer than two words except forStar Trek Generations,then Wikipedia's manual of style would recommend that "Into" be capitalized as the first word in the subtitle. The opposing side argued that it would violate Wikipedia's policy againstoriginal researchto assume that "Into Darkness" was a subtitle, thatStar Trek Into Darknessmay have been intended to be read as a sentence, and that it would support the studio's marketing strategy to allow "Into Darkness" to be interpreted as a subtitle. If "Into Darkness" were not a subtitle, then Wikipedia's manual of style would recommend that "into" be uncapitalized as a four-letter preposition. Furthermore, the uncapitalization camp argued that Abrams said that the film's title would not have "a subtitle with a colon".[2]

The side in favor of capitalization further argued that both secondary and primary sources used a capital "I". In an outburst, an unregistered Wikipedia editor wrote "READ THE GODDAMN OFFICIAL WEBSITE, YOU POMPOUS IDIOTS".[2][a]As a compromise, the lead for the article initially read "Star Trek into Darkness(usually written asStar Trek Into Darkness)... "before consensus was reached for the capitalization of" I ".[2]

Reaction and aftermath

[edit]
An excerpt of the January 30, 2013,xkcdcartoon byRandall Munroeabout the extended talk page discussion

On January 30, 2013, Kevin Morris wrote inThe Daily Dot,"When it comes to world classpedantry,few groups can challenge the prowess ofWikipediansandStar Trekfans".[2]

During the dispute, cartoonistRandall Munroewrote and drew a January 30, 2013,xkcdcomic strip both honoring and making fun of the edit war, depicting an editor who resolved the edit war by rewriting the title as "~*~StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs~*~ ".[2][4][5]

A month after the discussion had ended, the dispute was still interfering withGoogle searchesforStar Trek Into Darkness—searches for the film would return the title with a lowercasei,even though by that point the argument had been decided in favor of the capitalizedI.Morris commented that the incident shows the impact small groups of Wikipedia editors can have, especially in situations more severe than a simple capitalized letter.[6]

The 2016Christian Science Monitorarticle "The Source Code of Political Power", by Simon DeDeo ofIndiana University,used the debate as one example of how Wikipedia is an evolving system of ideas and found comparison to theTalmud.Accordingly, DeDeo opined that Wikipedia was moving towards increased complexity, refinement, and bureaucracy.[7]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^For an archived copy of the film's official website as it appeared at the time this comment was posted, seehttp://www.startrekmovie.comat theWayback Machine(archived January 30, 2013).

References

[edit]
  1. ^"Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works".Wikipedia.Archivedfrom the original on March 24, 2024.RetrievedSeptember 10,2024.
  2. ^abcdefMorris, Kevin (January 30, 2013)."Wikipedians wage war over a capital" I "in a" Star Trek "film".The Daily Dot.Archivedfrom the original on October 22, 2021.RetrievedOctober 22,2021.
  3. ^Dean, Will; Keleny, Guy (January 31, 2013)."Trekkies take on Wikis in a grammatical tizzy over Star Trek Into Darkness".The Independent.Archivedfrom the original on October 23, 2021.RetrievedOctober 22,2021.
  4. ^Lindbergh, Ben (January 15, 2021)."The Fight to Win the Pettiest Edit Wars on Wikipedia".The Ringer.Archivedfrom the original on January 15, 2021.RetrievedOctober 22,2021.
  5. ^Munroe, Randall (January 30, 2013)."Star Trek Into Darkness".XKCD.Archivedfrom the original on March 12, 2021.RetrievedOctober 23,2021.
  6. ^Morris, Kevin (February 21, 2013)."That epic Wikipedia" Star Trek "edit is still screwing up Google".The Daily Dot.Archivedfrom the original on October 24, 2021.RetrievedOctober 24,2021.
  7. ^DeDeo, Simon (March 24, 2016)."The Source Code of Political Power".The Christian Science Monitor.Archivedfrom the original on November 1, 2021.RetrievedNovember 1,2021.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_debate&oldid=1248352507"