1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

ubel
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:21 pm UTC

1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby ubel » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:22 am UTC

Image

Alt text: "Of course, factions immediately sprang up in favor of '~*~sTaR tReK iNtO dArKnEsS~*~', 'xX_StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNess_Xx', and 'Star Trek lnto Darkness' (that's a lowercase 'L')."

I guess everyone else is too deeply involved in keeping the wikipedia page as "StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs" ? Wait.. I just refreshed, looks like it's been fixed. Oh wait, refreshed again, it's back again.. "Reverted 3 edits by 204.85.24.5 (talk): Xkcd vandalism". Also, I laughed out loud, really hard, when I read the last panel. Excellent setup and delivery.

*edit added link and comment about the actual comic itself*
Last edited by ubel on Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:00 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby rhomboidal » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:24 am UTC

And now I want to stir things up with a new numbers-for-letters faction.

charlottepenelope
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:09 am UTC
Location: London

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby charlottepenelope » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:24 am UTC

Imagine if Randall didn't use capitals.

This thread would be entertaining, to say the least.

User avatar
Himself
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:17 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Himself » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:26 am UTC

This reminds me of the fact that Wikipedia has a list of lamest edit wars.
Though There is a difference between a discussion and an edit war.
"Looking me am a civilization person"
-Ratio Tile

amulshah7
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:59 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby amulshah7 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:28 am UTC

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

User avatar
Quicksilver
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:21 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Quicksilver » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:32 am UTC

Star Trekkin', across the universe
Boldly going forward, because we can't find reverse!

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

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby hughperkins » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:48 am UTC

Oh man, a small 'i' just looks so wrong!

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

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby hughperkins » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:51 am UTC

Maybe we should fork wikipedia? :twisted:

AdamW
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:34 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby AdamW » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:01 am UTC

Friend of mine has a University Wikipedius alumnus shirt:

http://shirt.woot.com/offers/university-wikipedius

We decided the university's sports teams would be the Fightin' Platypuses. For what I hope are obvious reasons...

moz1959
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:26 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby moz1959 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:05 am UTC

Certainly they would need to use the uppercase I to avoid the unfortunate acronym "STD", as it would seem too much like something you need to get medical treatment to cure.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby jpk » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:09 am UTC

moz1959 wrote:Certainly they would need to use the uppercase I to avoid the unfortunate acronym "STD", as it would seem too much like something you need to get medical treatment to cure.


If you find yourself talking about any move so much that you need an acronym for it, you should probably stop by LifeMart and see if there's a sale on. You might be able to find something cheap.

Of course, if you're arguing about the proper capitalization of a movie, it's likely that the transplant wouldn't take.

standingwave
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:26 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby standingwave » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:22 am UTC

Full circle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek_into_Darkness#xkcd_Mention

They're onto us. Or is that Their On to us? There: On To Us.

bandwevil
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:32 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby bandwevil » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:34 am UTC

My favorite part is that the official website (startrekmovie DOT com, damn you spam filter) uses the capital I form, and yet the discussion rages on.

ech
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:26 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby ech » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:37 am UTC

This is nothing compared to the debate about whether it should be "Mexican-American War" or "Mexican–American War".

sotanaht
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby sotanaht » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:41 am UTC

ech wrote:This is nothing compared to the debate about whether it should be "Mexican-American War" or "Mexican–American War".


Did you mistype something or were those supposed to be identical?

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:45 am UTC

The first is a hyphen; the second is an en dash.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3894
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:47 am UTC

What bothers me most about the title is that there should be a damn colon in there, unless "to star trek" is a verb or "a star trek" is a common noun, and the title is an imperative ("Star trek into darkness. Do it now! Start star trekking into the darkness!") or a complex noun phrase ("We're going to take a star trek into darkness. By the time our star trek is done, we will be completely in the darkness."). Otherwise, "Into Darkness" is a subheading and in the middle of prose (as opposed to on a poster or title card or logo or anything like that) should be written "Star Trek: Into Darkness".
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)

sotanaht
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby sotanaht » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:50 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:What bothers me most about the title is that there should be a damn colon in there, unless "to star trek" is a verb or "a star trek" is a common noun, and the title is an imperative ("Star trek into darkness. Do it now! Start star trekking into the darkness!") or a complex noun phrase ("We're going to take a star trek into darkness. By the time our star trek is done, we will be completely in the darkness."). Otherwise, "Into Darkness" is a subheading and in the middle of prose (as opposed to on a poster or title card or logo or anything like that) should be written "Star Trek: Into Darkness".


That was part of the discussion, it isn't actually all about the i.

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

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby hughperkins » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:15 am UTC

This is The Best viral marketing Star Trek could have hoped for!

villadelfia
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:35 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby villadelfia » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:15 am UTC

This reminds me about the misconceptions about the name of a location in Final Fantasy 9. In the game's font the uppercase i looks exactly like the lowercase L, so people have been discussing endlessly if the location is "Iifa tree" (that's iifa) or "lifa tree" (that's Lifa).

All very understandable, because the game has a shitty font... On the other hand, there is exactly one moment in the game where it uses a different font to render it:

Spoiler:
Image

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

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby hughperkins » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:21 am UTC

> On the other hand, there is exactly one moment in the game where it uses a different font to render it:

Yeah, but maybe the artist who drew that picture misread the name, and made a typo :D

User avatar
player_03
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:13 pm UTC

This is how it happened.

Postby player_03 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:39 am UTC

Image

I can think of no other explanation.
Last edited by player_03 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:40 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Djehutynakht » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:40 am UTC

A wonderful way to troll that page, Mr. Munroe.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3894
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:40 am UTC

sotanaht wrote:That was part of the discussion, it isn't actually all about the i.

Oh god, I hadn't actually read the talk page yet. I can't believe such a cut-and-dry issue has spawned such a huge debate, and worse still that the morons are winning despite not having a case to their side. I see bits and pieces of this point covered there but nobody has just outright said it: every single title of every single Star Trek movie and TV series has been written in graphics with "Star Trek" one one line, no punctuation, and a title-case subtitle on a separate line below, and all of them are written in Wikipedia as "Star Trek", a colon, and the subtitle in title case. And the only thing anyone on the "Star Trek into Darkness" side has to offer is that in one place, the synopsis, the title is cleverly used as part of a sentence where "Star Trek" is a proper noun and "into darkness" is a prepositional phrase attached to the verb "taking", and that in such cases MoS would have "into" lowercase. This despite the director himself stating that the movie would have a subtitle with no colon. Ridiculous.

...I should probably go post this on the actual talk page there.
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 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:52 am UTC

...I should probably go post this on the actual talk page there.


Somehow that reminds me of

Image :D

User avatar
player_03
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby player_03 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:56 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:...I should probably go post this on the actual talk page there.

In hopes of reaching 50,000 words without resolving anything?

At least calm down first. You don't sound very clear-headed when you go around calling people morons just because you disagree. (Not to mention calling the issue cut-and-dry despite valid arguments for both sides.)

User avatar
Otto
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:30 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Otto » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:59 am UTC

The best part of this whole hilarious discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Generations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_First_Contact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Insurrection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Nemesis

Every single one of those has a colon in their title, even though none of the film's art, posters, titles on DVDs, etc, had that same colon there.

shvedsky
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:39 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby shvedsky » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:07 am UTC

These guys have enough self-irony to start discussing how to capitalize "Xkcd" when referring to this comic.

CharonPDX
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:55 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby CharonPDX » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:26 am UTC

bandwevil wrote:My favorite part is that the official website (startrekmovie DOT com, damn you spam filter) uses the capital I form, and yet the discussion rages on.


The "serious" Wikipedians will argue about anything. "I don't care if E. E. Cummings used all lower case with no space between the first initials - it's just wrong, so we have to do it right."

Damn, I picked that out of thin air... Now looking, I see it's an actual argument. :|

Yup, my view is "if a content creator/artist choses a certain presentation style, that is the official style." See: iPod.

The argument is because, of course, with proper American English grammar, titles are capitalized, except for articles, prepositions, and conjunctions. The fact that the original creator used improper capitalization is irrelevant - we must use the proper capitalization at all times! </sarcasm>

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

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby hughperkins » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:57 am UTC

CharonPDX wrote:See: iPod


Don't you mean "Ipod"? :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 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:12 am UTC

Otto wrote:The best part of this whole hilarious discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Generations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_First_Contact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Insurrection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Nemesis

Every single one of those has a colon in their title, even though none of the film's art, posters, titles on DVDs, etc, had that same colon there.


Actually, they decided to do away with the colons after the reboot, so the new movie titles would be graphically different from the old ones. At least that's what I heard.

BTW, did you notice the discussion on the talk page shifted to arguing whether to write Xkcd when it's the first word in a sentence?

Edit:
I may be misinterpreting since I only skimmed the discussion, but are they really using the fact that an official source wrote "In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness." as proof that the I should be lower case?

The other mac
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:48 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby The other mac » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:52 am UTC

I'd just like to propose

Star Trek İnto Darkness

pololoco
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:44 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby pololoco » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:56 am UTC

...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?

User avatar
mikrit
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:13 pm UTC
Location: Sweden

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby mikrit » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:01 am UTC

ech wrote:This is nothing compared to the debate about whether it should be "Mexican-American War" or "Mexican–American War".
Ha! I thought you were joking about the hyphen/endash issue. But you weren't.
Hatted and wimpled by ergman.
Dubbed "First and Eldest of Ottificators" by svenman.
Febrion wrote: "etc" is latin for "this would look better with more examples, but I can't think of any".

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 803
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby da Doctah » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:28 am UTC

CharonPDX wrote:with proper American English grammar, titles are capitalized, except for articles, prepositions, and conjunctions. The fact that the original creator used improper capitalization is irrelevant - we must use the proper capitalization at all times! </sarcasm>


And the first word of a title (or a subtitle, which Into Darkness most certainly is in this case, colon or no colon!) is capitalized even if it is an article, preposition or conjunction.

Fact of the matter is, there are conflicting schools of thought regarding capitalization of titles; some say every word, some say the first word and every subsequent word except articles/prepositions/conjunctions, some say even articles/prepositions/conjunctions if they're more than six letters long, at least one British variant says only the first word and any proper names, etc. There should be a prevailing style guide that settles the matter, but apparently the Wikipediocracy hasn't bothered to establish one, so the law of the Wild West applies.

(This has happened before. Check out the song titles on the Beatles White Album (inside the sleeve of the vinyl LP, ya retconning newbies!). There are at least two conflicting sets of rules at work there, and the situation would doubtless be even more chaotic except that so many of the titles are only one word long.)

Gauteamus
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 4:46 pm UTC
Location: Ultima Thule

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Gauteamus » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:00 am UTC

Haven't actually seen any Star Trek movies, but great reference to .-=conTact=-.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3894
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:05 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:Fact of the matter is, there are conflicting schools of thought regarding capitalization of titles; some say every word, some say the first word and every subsequent word except articles/prepositions/conjunctions, some say even articles/prepositions/conjunctions if they're more than six letters long, at least one British variant says only the first word and any proper names, etc. There should be a prevailing style guide that settles the matter, but apparently the Wikipediocracy hasn't bothered to establish one, so the law of the Wild West applies.

Actually, that is exactly the problem. WP has a manual of style which says first word and every subsequent word but articles/prepositions/conjunctions/etc, which would only be overruled if "Into" was the first word of the subtitle (in which case, while there isn't a style guide comment on it per se, wiki-wide precedent is to use colons to stand for line breaks between titles and subtitles), which the opposition claims is not the case on the empty grounds of "there's no colon, and it's a new series so the absence of colons in every other Star Trek doesn't mean anything!" and that the synopsis makes clever use of it in a sentence talking about "taking Star Trek into darkness", but capitalizing the latter two words (that is to say, taking the Star Trek franchise to dark places).

Either it's a subtitle like every other piece of Star Trek media ever, and the studio's artistic grammar license is in omitting the colon, so WP should say "Star Trek: Into Darkness"; or, it's a phrase in a sentence, in which case the studio's artistic grammar license is in omitting the verb that "into darkness" attaches to completely, and WP should say, as it does now, "Star Trek into Darkness". In any case it shouldn't be "Star Trek Into Darkness" on Wikipedia; that's either missing a colon (most likely) or capitalizing against the manual of style (implausible, as "Into Darkness" is quite obviously a subtitle).
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)

Jeff_UK
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Jeff_UK » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:12 am UTC

Firstly, I'm looking forward to the ironic rainbow explosion when this thread surpasses 40,000 words

Secondly, I always thought it was Star-Trek; I'll go fix the article...

Edit: AH! Drama!
Image
Last edited by Jeff_UK on Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:21 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"Please only print this post if you really need to"
...hmm....I wonder how much extra energy is required to generate that request...We need a cost/benefit analysis, STAT!

asdfzxc
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:04 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby asdfzxc » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:13 am UTC

Protected within an hour of the comic being posted.

Impressive.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3074
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:46 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:the synopsis makes clever use of it in a sentence talking about "taking Star Trek into darkness", but capitalizing the latter two words (that is to say, taking the Star Trek franchise to dark places).


I wonder if anyone has ever mentioned a certain movie that shows the universe of Star Trek the wrath of Khan Noonien Singh?

Anyway, things like this are the reason why I don't bother editing Wikipedia, and only very rarely contribute to talk pages - there's a community of active editors who have achieved a consensus on how the site works, and outsiders are either assimilated or driven off...


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Soupspoon and 38 guests