Talk:Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 00:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is a pretty lulzy article. I am a little concerned that, of five sources, one of them is a Wikipedia article -- it's clearly WP:ABOUTSELF, but I'm not sure what current consensus is about this specific sort of navel-gazing. I would appreciate if someone else could give some guidance here. jp×g 01:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JPxG: Thanks for the speedy review! I found this from WP:CIRCULAR: An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Does that answer your question? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that'll work. Would it not be more proper to link to a specific revision, though? jp×g 02:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool! Passing. jp×g 03:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting the main hook to Prep 5. The consensus of the deletion discussion was to keep this article. There is no discussion on the talk page about any possible merge, so it meets the criteria to be featured on DYK. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links

As this seems likely to run and run, we should maintain a list of relevant links. So far, there's

  1. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_25#~*~_StAr_TrEk_InTo_DaRkNeSs_~*~
  2. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_1#StAr_TrEk_InTo_DaRkNeSs
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy
  4. Wikipedia:INTODARKNESS

Title change?

Do we need the "2013" in the title? There are no other Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversies that I know of, so do we need the year in the title to distinguish this one? I would suggest we rename this simply Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy... — Hunter Kahn 23:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could always spell out 2013 as "two thousand and thirteen" theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that there is no need for the date in the title of the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
moved! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

there's seriously an article about this nonsense? 166.181.82.125 (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It draws more people to the site. Fun81 (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Should the “~*~StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs~*~” redirect be recreated now that it somehow has a relevant article? DogsRNice (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this—"StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs" exists, after all. —Will(B) 03:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done! —Will(B) 17:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Star Trek lnto Darkness (that's a lower case L) should also be created, as it is also referenced in the same place. Unfortunately its indefinitely blocked from recreation. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 15:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly named, what controversy?

This page title and page text are so incorrectly worded that some are still trying to do an end-around the recent AfD Keep decision and "merge" it to List of Wikipedia controversies, a page it doesn't come close to fitting. What is the controversy? There was none that I can tell. There was a common styling discussion which then grew quite large and outside-media notable. Nothing controversial, Wikipedia styling discussions are not rare nor controversial. All uses of the word 'controversy' on the page should actually be removed and reworded for accuracy ("change my mind"). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, perhaps “debate” would be better. —Will(B) 21:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe instead of controversy, it could be named a conspiracy? Because really, why would there be a controversy. Afterall, the name of the movie is "Star Trek Into Darkness". Flight Risk (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Debate" is used in the main sources and not "controversy": [1][2][3]. Let's avoid overblowing "controversy", especially on such a navel-gazing topic. czar 13:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comma in lede

@Randy Kyrn I don't think "From December 11, 2012, until the end of January 2013," should have a comma after 2012, because it would read "From..., until...,". My intuition says that "From... until...," (or really, "From... to...") would be idiomatic instead.

Admittedly, I'm having trouble finding concrete sources one way or the other. Would it be okay to change it to "From December 11, 2012 to the end of January 2013,"? BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Proposal

I propose to change the page's name to "Star Trek 𐊈nto Darkness", or any other name with a confusing obscure character. Language Boi (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Randy Kryn, you seem to be confused as to what our image use policy requires. WP:NFCC says non free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. An XKCD cartoon does not. Seraphimblade was right to remove it. The fact it's just a panel is irrelevant outside of the minimal use parameter, but I don't think anyone is even bringing up NFCC#3 concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoon panel by a fan and friend of Wikipedia captures the page in a nutshell, and surely meets the criteria "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Someone who knows how should put up one of those explanation templates on the image upload page (I'm not savvy with tech and coding). This panel and cartoon was discussed somewhere above and agreed to. Will go off-line in a couple minutes, so am not ignoring if replied, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. Just stating that an xkcd was made specifically about the controversy is plenty for a reader to understand that, and the comic can even be cited as a source if a reader wants to see it. There's no reason to put it on the page. That said, Munroe has in the past agreed to license a few individual xkcd panels related to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA so they can be used here—has anyone asked him about that one? Obviously were he willing to do that, then we can most certainly use it here. But not as nonfree content; it just is not able to pass #1 or #8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn. I don't see any discussion of the image above, and there's apparently no archives to speak of. Are you thinking of another location? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David Fuchs, there was a discussion about the image somewhere [EDIT:See just below], I thought it was here and it's not, nor at the 2021 AfD nomination. It's somewhere, but the gist of it was that instead of asking the cartoonist for permission for the entire cartoon the one panel was enough to illustrate and summarize the page. It's a really fine panel and shows why the discussion was notable (still don't know why the page is called controversy and not "discussion"). It was actually a pretty long discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs, here it is, at Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies/Archive 4, item 7 down. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a merge discussion. There's only a brief discussion of a deletion nomination during that discussion, and that appears to be the prior nomination at FfD, which in fact resulted in the file's deletion. So, yes, there was indeed a prior discussion of this image, at FFD—and that one found it inappropriate as well. It looks like the deleting admin said the only way it should be restored is if Munroe does indeed agree to a free license, and he did not respond to a request to do so at that time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The FfD occurred well before the merge discussion ended, and the text at merge at least describes and discusses using the one panel and not the entire cartoon. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was briefly mentioned there, in a discussion that was about an unrelated subject (whether to merge the article). I don't see that as having any particular relevance. And another editor, Arecht, noted that a screenshot of the talk page discussion (which of course is freely licensed) could be used to illustrate the article instead. That would be more centrally relevant to it (the xkcd is much more tangential), and of course freely licensed since it would be from Wikipedia. So, I don't see that as advancing your case at all; it rather does the opposite. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not advancing my case but lobbying for the best article, which would include the cartoon panel as illustration of the event. In fact this page may not even exist if it weren't for the cartoon which gave it notability. If a screen shot works well too then that should be included as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "too". If we can use a free image for the article, then we can't also use nonfree. So I'll go ahead and do that, and then the image will in fact be replaced, hence we'll know it's replaceable. The event the article is about was the discussion, not the cartoon, so that's a much better and more germane illustration in any case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's replaceable to you, but not to the best-page-possible. That would include the cartoon panel, the main reason it made the page notable. So the use of the screenshot is an end-around using the panel as free use? That certainly doesn't seem fair and seems a not-so-subtle manipulation of rules and regs to remove the image. Let's all email the cartoonist and get that image back to freely usuable on this page status. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be wise for all of us to flood him with emails, but given that no response was received last time, it certainly might be worth a second attempt in case he just missed the first one, especially given that he's been willing to do it in the past. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will send him one tomorrow, but that's not stopping anyone from also sending a request and a "thanks" for his work on artistically portraying Wikipedia related topics. His iconic "Citation needed" cartoon should probably have its own Wikipedia page (hover over it for its real name). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade, thank you for putting up the screen shot, from it I saw that the date has been wrong. The discussion started, according to the screen shot, on December 1, 2012, not December 11, 2012. I don't know if I'm directly responsible, haven't looked at the page history, but certainly am responsible as an editor of the page for never catching it. It also means that the first part of the discussion, before it took a few days break, did not last 30 days but lasted 40 days (and 40 nights). Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade, have just noticed that you've put the cartoon panel up for deletion as a two-day prod or something. Was that really needed? And easily arguable to be an incorrect prod. Note the criteria: "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The cartoon is the image that directly defines the page. Totally unlike the screen shot, which does not define the page. The screen shot only shows the start of an often typical Wikipedia discussion. A few edits are shown. The notability of the discussion however - the reason for this page - came much later. The cartoon panel directly sums up the page topic, which is the length of time and words, the caring and dedication taken by editors to share accurate information, and the energy that volunteer Wikipedians put into what to most sane humans on the planet would seem bat-shit crazy but to others, as the cartoon says, it reads-out as magnificent and breathtaking. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a normal means of nominating replaceable nonfree images for deletion. I've done it many times; it's nothing particularly unusual or special here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cartoon panel isn't replaceable as a page defining image. Or at least not replaced by an image of a few Wikipedia edits which do not, by themselves, tell the story. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, neither one tells the story, nor should they. The article text tells the story. But since the article is about the discussion, not the cartoon, then an image of the discussion is more "page-defining" than a cartoon anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what the meaning of the word 'is' is (to coin a phrase), and what the page is actually about (Wikipedian process). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, if you want other opinions you can go to WT:NFCC and ask, but I'm fairly confident they're going to give you the same opinion on the image we did. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all! Although I feel like my professional obligation as a cartoonist is to try to figure out a response that somehow makes this whole thing even more complicated, I’m happy to just allow use of the comic image under CC-BY-SA 4.0. Thank you for all the good-faith discussion here and elsewhere! xkcd (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the license, for clarity, are you releasing the full comic under CC-BY-SA 4.0 or just the frame as used currently? Either way, thank you for your contributions! =) —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we will find out in another 12.5 years. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All four panels of the full comic! Let’s go wild.
As a side note, it’s funny that I can change the license just by replying. It seems like it shouldn’t be that easy! I assume this power has reasonable limits, but if not, I hereby release the entire run of Jim Davis’s Garfield as CC-by-SA as well. xkcd (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Xkcd, Wikipedia thanks you from the bottom of its computerized heart for releasing Garfield for universal use. No doubt cat friendly fans will rejoice. Now do The Far Side, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. you may have an interest in the discussion at Barbenheimer about using the opening caption to the article, possibly a minor-league rival to this debate (or not). I'll leave it to you to take-in the opening image and caption and not describe its wonder and aligned-stars, give or take a galaxy here and there (mostly there), Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the beginning of this discussion be September 23, 2012?

See the September 23, 2012, beginning of the casing discussion, which appears quite a bit earlier than the start of the discussion shown in the screen-capture image on the page. A timeline would show the initial September discussion, the October discussion, and so forth, until the December 1 discussion began when the page was lowercased by an editor. Thoughts on how this all should be worded and described on the page? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before I address the timeline specifically, I'll point out that I made some edits to make the article clearer for those who are not familiar with Wikipedia's processes. I clarified what a "talk page" is and replaced the external links to just one (there were even more sections in the archives so I just noted that the discussions can be found there).
I'm not sure how much detail we really need here. Keep in mind that the talk page is a primary source. Also, from December 1, 2012, to January 9, 2013, and then was picked up again from January 13 to January 31, 2013 doesn't seem correct to me: The requested move starting on December 11 was closed on January 9, but there was additional "post-closing discussion" that took place through until January 13 and even past that.
I had more specific suggestions but I'm supposed (!) to be on a Wikibreak and I probably shouldn't even be here right now. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 13:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 6 § StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs until a consensus is reached. Bremps... 17:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_debate"