Talk:Spock/Archive 1

First Alien?

Mr. Spock was not the first alien on T.V. Uncle Martin(played by Ray Walston) on My Favorite Martian was aired on CBS from September 29, 1963. Several years before Star Trek was aired on September 8, 1966.

First Vulcan?

Was he the first Vulcan in Starfleet? Magic Pickle 20:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he wasn't. The First Vulcan, was earlier In the 2100s, It may have been T'pol.

Spock is NOT Vulcan. He is half human, half Vulcan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.35.247 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mission failed?

Where exactly in the tenth film did it say that Spock's mission was a failure, and where is it said that Spock is now dead?

172.209.224.1 01:21, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't say explicitly that it was a failure but since Vulcans and Romulans aren't reunited in the tenth movie, it seems that he didn't succeed in bringing them closer. BTW the article says "Zar returns to the past at the end of the novel, but also reveals he is sterile" -- exactly where is this sentence in the novel Time For Yesterday? I read it but I don't remember Zar being sterile. Alensha 21:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I read the novel about 10-15 years ago and there was a conversation, somewhere in there, where Zar asks McCoy to sterilize him and McCoy says that he would. Either the author or the editors put that in the book to close the loop as to whether or not Spcok could have grandchildren. P.S.- I dont think Spock is dead either. Indeed, in Star Trek Nemesis the cooperation seen at the end of the film, i.e. when the Romulan military turns on Shinzon, would indicate that there is something still going on with reunification efforts. Husnock 1 Nov 2004

I found that part in the book. McCoy says Zar is able to have healthy children so there's no need to sterilize him but he will do it if Zar really wants it. I always thought Zar changed his mind after McCoy reassured him, but now I'm not sure. I don't think Spock is dead (at least, I hope he is still living :-) Alensha 18:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would add this comment to the bottom of the page, but since "Zar" was debated here, I thought I'd put it here for it to be seen. The article as it now stands mentions the novel but does not actually clarify that "Zar" is the name of the son of Spock in the book. Someone who hasn't read the book would wonder who Zar was, as I did. Just a bit of clarification, one sentence, would be good. 72.192.237.134 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Ismail

First or last name?

I haven't seen "This Side of Paradise" in a long time, in which we first learn that Vulcans have two names. Question: has it been established that Spock is his FIRST or his SECOND name? I've been going under the impression it's his first name, but the introduction to this article says otherwise. 23skidoo 01:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Spock" is apparently his surname.

I don't think so, since we have seen him referred to as "Spock, son of Sarek", etc. I believe it is his first name, unless canon supports that every Vulcan has a different family name. 23skidoo 17:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

In "This Side of Paradise", what she actually says is "You never told me if you had another name, Mr. Spock" (yes, I checked, I'm a nerd). In some cultures, the family name is last, in some it comes first. How's this: his family name is unpronouncable, Spock is his familiar/personal name, Spock is his last name, and everybody's happy. Roygbiv666 00:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Unpronounceable in what way? There are plenty of things that are unpronounceable to speakers of certain languages that dominate commerce on Earth in the early 21st century yet are perfectly pronounceable by native speakers of other human languages. Can you pronounce "he had held a bunchberry plant" in Nuxalk, consonants with precise places of articulation in Ubykh, or words with clicks in !Kung or Xhosa? In fact, the name of Nintendo's video game console code named "Revolution" was changed to "Wii" because Reboryuushon is a mouthful in Japanese. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In the aforementioned episode, Spock's answer to the question was, "You couldn't pronounce it." Watch the episode in question if you have it available.  :) - EmiOfBrie 05:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• The article says Spock whispers his name to the Romulan Commander in "The Enterprise Incident." No, I don't think he does. She is the one, in fact, who whispers HER name to him, whereupon he says something like "How rare and wonderful."Sir Rhosis 01:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I confirm this: She, the romulan commander, whispers HER name to him, Spock, and have deleted that false statetment in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.246.248 (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon User Christian Statements

There is an anon user who keeps adding that Spock has a "Christian" name. The user has made this addition at least five times over the past 2-3 days. I have attempted leaving messages on this persons talk page but to no avail. The person is logging under several different IP addresses, as well, probably because of a rotating server.

In any event, I think we'll all agree that saying things like Vulcans are Christians and that Spock is a Christian and has a Christian name is not based on any evidence in Star Trek. I will continue to revert this person's comments in line with the policy of No original research. I hate to be mean to a newbie, but if it continues it might become a vandalism issue. -Husnock 05:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Be careful not to violate the three revert rule. You might need to consult an admin on this since the anon seems to be pretty insistent about it. 23skidoo 18:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. The guy hasnt been on in a few days. If he does come back, it might become a vandalism issue if we all agree that saying Vulcans are Christians is patent nonsense and can be reverted without discussion. -Husnock 18:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. In many parts of the world "Christian name" simply means a first name; it doesn't imply anything about religion. So all the poster probably means is that Spock has a first name. In fact I seem to remember a sequence from one of the TOS episodes where some woman falls in love with Spock, something like this:

Woman: Do you have a Christian name? Leila Kolomi: You never told me if you had another name, Mr. Spock.

Spock: You would never be able to pronounce it. Spock: You couldn't pronounce it.

Since I think "Christian name" was more likely to be used as a synonym for "first name" in the US in the sixties, it may have gone exactly like that. DJ Clayworth 18:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"Christian name" is not a synonym for "first name" as it has further meaning besides simply meaning "first name". It means "First name as formalized in a christening (sp?) ceremony in a christian church. Since Spock is not, has not, and very likely never will become a christian, then it is a misnomer in the context of the article. Yes, the term is commonly used in the US to mean first or given name, it has greater significance than just that and thus cannot be ascribed to Spock, who very obviously is not a member of that religion.

Fair comment, although if you check some of the Edit summaries there does appear to be an intent on the part of the anon to suggest that Vulcans might be Christians. Are you sure this dialogue appears in the episode? I know there is an exchange, but I don't recall Spock being specifically asked for his "Christian" name ... only his "other" name. Anyone got the DVD handy? 23skidoo 18:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Possibly the anon user is doing the misunderstanding. I suggest we put the info back in a form that can't be misinterpreted. I'm pretty certain that, whatever the phraseology, nothing more religious than "first name" was implied.

There is no misunderstanding. The term "christian name" has a subtext that has no place in the article. That is not open to interpretation. The intent of the original editor who put in the phrase, while open to interpretation, is irrelevant to the conversation. The only reason FOR this discussion is the subtext of the phrase "christian name", thus the phrase will be removed and the discussion is closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.216.116 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally found a reference: according to this interview with Leonard Nimoy Spock had a first name which could not be pronounced. "The only reference to his first name I recall is an episode which includes a beautiful love scene. In the end she said: 'You never told me your first name' and I said: 'You wouldn't be able to pronounce it'. " DJ Clayworth 18:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

In light of the corrected quote (see above), it's pretty clear that the episode doesn't specify whether the "unpronouncable" name is his first or last name. 23skidoo 13:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this comes from FANON. Spock's mother Amanda is a Christian, and did read the Bible to Spock. This is not included in CANON, but has been generally accepted by fans since the 1960s. I don't remember the entire legend, but it allowed Spock to integrate into Human (Terran) society and Starfleet more easily. Nimoy himself is a very proud Jew and includes elements of Judaism into the character of Spock. This fan legend has the same weight as T for Tiberius, or Hikaru as Sulu's name. It's accepted as fact even if it isn't shown on screen. It wasn't until ST:VI that Tiberius and Hikaru were both confirmed as CANON. The painting in Spock's quarters, "Expulsion from the Garden" could be a covert way of acknowledging the legend without expressly painting Spock or his mother Amanda as Christians. Logically, a Vulcan would not decorate his quarters with Human origin mythology, nor would he be as familiar with Genesis as shown in ST:II, unless his Human mother introduced him to it.

A Vulcan could very easily be aware of Earth Human mythology for many reasons besides believing in it. I know quite a bit about Norse mythology but I don't think Odin had anything to do with the creation of the universe. I know about Christianity but I don't think there's an unnamed sky god who created the universe in 6 days. No reason for Spock to believe it either, among other things, it's totally illogical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.216.116 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Journey to Babel

I would like to include this from the episode "Journey to Babel":

After Spock's parents have come aboard, Kirk addresses Amanda as "Mrs. Sarek."

Amanda replies, "Amanda. You couldn't pronounce the Vulcan family name."

"Can you?"

"Oh, after a fashion, and after many years of practice..."

In an interview, D.C. Fontana suggested a series of consonants which could be the family name. So of course fans picked on that as being the (non-canon) family name: Xtmprszntwfld. And don't ask me why I can remember that, but I don't remember what interview that was. :)

I'm not totally sure if, in Amanda's initial reply to Kirk, she used the phrase "family name." I think I remember it right.

Maybe it's worth asking--if Kirk found Spock's family name too difficult, would he call him "Mister" followed by his first name?

Everybody in and outside of Starfleet consistently called him "Mr. Spock."

Jimmy Carter's National Security Chief was Zbigniew Brzezinski. Did anybody ever call him "Mr. Zbigniew?" Not a perfect example, since his first name is only a little less difficult than his last name.

I remember a non-canon source which suggested his first name is Sareku, son of Sarek; his middle name is Spock and his family name is Xtmprszntwfld.

roger

Yesteryear references

I mentioned this on Kchishol1970's talk page as well, but I'll put the question out. Is there any source that says for certain that Yesteryear is considered canon? My understanding is there are no exceptions, and that the Encyclopedia and Chronology are not considered authoritative on this matter. 23skidoo 17:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canon vs. non-canon

I think we need a clearer indication of which material is canonical and which isn't. At the time of this writing, one of the paragraphs is simply prefixed with "[Non-canon]:". Not only is this bracketed text a less-than-ideal header, it doesn't make it clear whether it pertains only to a single paragraph, or to all text from that point forward (although clearly some of the later paragraphs reference canonical sources). Perhaps the Biography section should be divided into subsections? Ringbang 00:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph in question appears to be a synopsis of the TAS episode "Yesteryear". I think a better intro than "non-canon" can be found for this, though I wouldn't suggest going too much into why TAS is not canon since that's covered elsewhere. I agree the biography section could be split up a bit. 23skidoo 01:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I fixed some factual errors involving the Nerve Pinch as well as the Mind Meld.

Star Trek devotees, I need your help

Throughout the (1966-69) Star Trek: TOS, Spock wears 2 full stripes around his wrists ,which is the rank of Commander, yet in the first season (I think) ,He's descibed as a Lieutenant Commander. Could someone explain? Is this a blooper? User:Mightberight/wrong 22:27, 29 October 2005 (EST).

I don't believe the rank system settled until the third season. If I recall correctly, Kirk wears two full stripes in Where No Man Has Gone Before, yet holds the rank of captain. But the way you describe it, it just sounds like Spock got a promotion that was never addressed in the series. 23skidoo 21:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It may be helpful to consider the difference between rank and position. A person may hold the position of Captain of a ship and have the rank of Commander. -- William Carraway 26 Aug 06

In most real world navies such an officer would be called "Skipper" to avoid confusion. Gene was a WW2 bomber pilot and would know the difference. Jack Kennedy was the Skipper of PT109 not the captain.

It is an oddity -- despite wearing the full commander's stripes, he is referred to as "Lieutenant Commander" in several episodes (The Menagerie, Court Martial). --EEMeltonIV 04:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It would have helped if they had just copied the naval system completely rather than partially like they did for ST:TNG. It certainly would have been less confusing. Of course, it would also help if uniforms did not change on a whim. Will 06:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess is, it was a script writers mistake. As Captain Kirk is the commander (CO) of the Enterprise, writers may have looked at position more then rank, somehow called Spock 'Lt.Cmder' as meaning the Commander's (the CO's) Lieutenant (next in command). Sure wish I had a varifiable source for this. GoodDay 20:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure where to say this... but Nimoy wasn't reluctant to be in the second movie. And when people say that it was in his contract that Spock was to die, or that they reached an agreement that Spock was supposed to die is not true. Don't believe me? check the intreview with Nimoy at the end of the first season, disc 8. He says so himself. Reflections on Spock. Spocks-girl Nimoy contradicts himself. Read "I Am Spock" he hated the way his character had been treated by Heinekin and The Motion Picture and only signed onto Wrath once they asked him if he'd like a death scene.

Nimoy contradicts himself. Read "I Am Spock" he hated the way his character had been treated by Heinekin and The Motion Picture and only signed onto Wrath once they asked him if he'd like a death scene.

Mind meld

I don't get the Vulcan mind meld stuff, I thought only full Vulcans can perform mind melds; like how only full Betazoids can read minds and half ones can only read emotions. The EMH once said not even Vulcan mind masters can perform mind melds sucessfully everytime. Spock can't even control his emotions all the time so how does he do mind melds? Odo

I do have a theory, and that is that it is the blend of human, and vulcan. That What every vulcan needs is the element of guesswork, Or that because he is half human, He does not fully hide his emotions, thus leaving him enough thought to work on the mind meld..Captain Eric 06:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

STIII actors

"During this film, he is played by Carl Steven (age 9), Vadia Potenza (Age 13), Stephen Manley (Age 17), and Joe W. Davis (Age 25). " The Joe W. Davis linked to here seems to be too old to be the same person... is it? -FZ 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Good call. IMDB (at [[1]]) shows only one other role played by this actor, so it is gonna be tough to get any additional info about him. I'm unlinking the article. Thanks --Keeves 11:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. If you unlink one you have to unlink all three otherwise it looks awkward. I suggest unlinking all the actors in this paragraph if you're going to do this. Most likely what will happen now is someone will just come along, see a missing wikilink, and put it back in. I believe there's even a bot out there doing this. 23skidoo 15:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Page name

Why isn't the name of the article Spock (Star Trek), like Phlox (Star Trek)? The closest I can find in WP:NC is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifiers not between brackets. I'm not up to boldly break links without discussion. --Christopherlin 07:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My guess: Because the Mr. is included. In other words, a person might enter Spock having intended one of the other entries, but if someone enters Mr. Spock, it is highly unlikely that he meant anything other than this page. (I concede that someone might enter Mr. Spock intending for 2309 Mr. Spock.) In sharp contrast, someone who goes to Phlox probably wants the flower (much as we might want to deny it). --Keeves 11:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Fictional characters obey a different set of naming conventions to real people. In particular, titles are generally not included in articles about real people, but are included in articles about fictional characters. Examples here: Inspector Morse, Captain George Mainwaring, etc. Morwen - Talk 11:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In particular, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) expressly notes that it doesn't apply to fictional characters, and gives the further example of Dame Edna Everage.

I looked through Category:Star Trek characters and its subcats and found other characters who follow the form "Dan (Star Trek)": Data, Lore, B-4, Quark, Rom, Vash, Chang. These don't have two-part names, and only Data has a rank. One that goes the other way (i.e. "Lieutenant Dan") is Lieutenant Hawk, who has first name Sean given in the article, but I don't recall one spoken on-screen to make it canon. While there is no firm guideline on naming of fictional characters, Spock (Star Trek) might give some consistency within the Star Trek-related articles. --Christopherlin 23:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Most people looking for Spock will either type in Spock or Mr. Spock. Moving the article to Spock (Star Trek) creates an unnecessary redirect. Specifying "Star Trek" is only necessary if the name by itself may refer to something else, as is the case with Data and Phlox for certain. Someone wanting Benjamin Spock would either type that name in or use Dr. Spock. Anyone looking for Mr. Spock who types in Dr. Spock deserves the redirect. ;-) 23skidoo 00:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to Spock, et al.

Spock → Spock (disambiguation) / Mr. Spock → Spock – The proposed simpler article name reflects the prevailing form for this iconic character in the Star Trek universe ... and perhaps outside of fandom. Given the prevalence of the sole term to refer to this character vis-à-vis others (including the current article name), it's arguable that there's anything precluding such a move. To elaborate: most people looking for Spock (ST) will either type in "Spock" or "Mr. Spock". Someone wanting Benjamin Spock would either type that name in or use "Dr. Spock". Other meanings (e.g., the namesake asteroid, etc.) are unlikely prevalent enough and are already accounted for (or should be) through unique article names and redirects.

Beforehand, the creation of the dedicated disambiguation page is also proposed, which would contain the entries currently in the Spock dab. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support as proponent. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Mr. Spock" is the iconic name for the character, and the page would still need some sort of dab statement at the top. Also, there are tons of links that would have to be changed were this move to take place, though I suppose that could be handled by a bot. 23skidoo 13:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I've seen the character be referred to as "Spock" more than "Mr. Spock", and this avoids the question of whether the article should be at Mr Spock or Mister Spock instead. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 13:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support move of Spock to Spock (disambiguation) and a redirect of Spock to Mr. Spock. Most common "Spock" and correct name like that. Kusma (討論) 17:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support renaming Mr. Spock as Spock. His name is not "Mister", which is too familiar. He eventually became a Captain, presumably an Admiral, and an Ambassador. If some sort of title were necessary, "Ambassador" would be the technically correct one, but I think plain ol' Spock is the most appropriate name for this article.--StAkAr Karnak 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support The official name of the character is Spock. "Mr.Spock" being the iconic name is a popular misconception.--Cuervo7 22:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Ditto what StAkArKarnak said. --Keeves 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, should be Spock, not Mr. Spock.--Fallout boy 07:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spock's death and rebirth

I added some details from the novelization as a way of adding a possible explanation of why Kirk had Spock buried in space over the Genesis planet - not to replace any details from the movie with details from the book. I know probably a lot of people have not read the novelization, but it certainly helps to explain the possible motivations behind Kirk's decision not to return Spock to Vulcan and the motivation behind the space burial.

I also added some more details about the events covered in the third film dealing with the recovery of Spock's body and the refusion of the katra with his body. Such as how Spock had accomplished the transfer of his mind into another person, Sarek's request of Kirk to perform this mission, and Kirk's explanation to Spock of why he had done this thing.
JesseG 20:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Spock news

"Recent evidence conclusively proves that Mr Spock is not half human and half Vulcan, he is in fact fully Vulcan. His late mother, previously thought to have been human, was in fact Vulcan."

I think that this important news should be included, even though there is no real evidence for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.26.205 (talk • contribs)

• Uncited claim. Every canon reference I'm aware of (and even every non-canon) states he's half vulcan, half human. Do you have any cites to back up the above claim? --Durin 13:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• I had to go home and get the book in the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.26.205 (talk • contribs)
• Just take a look at his ears —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.26.205 (talk • contribs)

• The appearance of his ears doesn't change his racial make up. This is still an uncited claim. --Durin 21:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Are you saying that his father was into bestiality?

• Are you saying that humans are beasts? I've only been a fan of the show for a few weeks, and even I know that Spock is Half Human. Where did you even get that quote? It seems to me, and I know that this is speculation, that you probably made it up because you were uncomfortable with the members of two different species reproducing. And to change his mixed parentage would ruin the character. He's supposed to be at a constant internal conflict between his logical vulcan side and his emotional human side. On the subject of you saying his having Vulcan characteristics meaning that he must be fully vulcan: That doesn't mean anything except that Vulcan Genes are dominant. I know a girl whose father is black and mother is white, but if you were to hazard a guess as to her race, you'd never guess that she was of mixed race. Also, because I can't go on a single rant like this without bursting some bubbles, he's a fictional character. There is no "evidence" that could possibly prove anything about something that doesn't exist. Unless Gene Roddenberry himself told us that Spock is actually fully vulcan (impossible since he's dead,) The character stands as is. (If anyone could help me by adding one of those little "preceding unsigned comment" things to this with my IP address, I don't know how.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.65.149 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Of note: he is younger in the upcoming movie,which would be impossible for a full vulcan,as they age too slowly to look different in a period of about 10 years. --Mariusrhinox (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Spock's ranks

Does anyone, know how to seperate Spock's Lieutenant Commander and Commander rank insignias? They appear stuck together on the article info box. GoodDay 17:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

From the Personal Life section

"In the non-canon novel Yesterday's Son, Spock is revealed to have fathered a son while trapped in the past on the subsequently destroyed planet Sarpeidon. In the sequel, Time for Yesterday, Zar returns to mindmeld once more with the Guardian of Forever."

(Emphasis added.)

Interesting idea. I assume the novel had it that time flowed at disparate rates in the two eras. (Otherwise I'd have to steal a quote from an unworthy movie, to wit: "Fast worker, that guy!")

But I digress. To get to the point, this is the son of Spock and Zarabeth, and his name is Zar, true? Then his name should appear in the first sentence; otherwise it's vague who Zar is. --Chris 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced trivia item

One of the trivia items ends with "Leondard Nimoy voiced Galvatron, a reincarnation of Megatron usually voiced by Frank Welker in Transformers: The Movie." However, this is a trivia item that could stand alone -- but not here. It would belong in the Leonard Nimoy article.--Will 05:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

George Lindsey

During the TVLand marathon of TOS this past weekend (I believe it was during "Shore Leave"), Nimoy stated that Rodenberry's first choice for for Spock was George Lindsey. Any other cite for this? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Format Comparison: Spock and James T. Kirk

The two articles Spock and James T. Kirk are written in very different formats. While reading "Spock", it is clear that the article is talking about a fictional character in a fictional universe, and appropriate phrasing and references to the actor (Leonard Nimoy) are used throughout. "James T. Kirk" is written in much more of an "in-universe" style, with only passing reference made to the fact that the Star Trek universe is, in fact, entirely fictional.

I make no assertion as to which is more appropriate. However, due to the similarities in the characters referenced in both articles, it seems like a consistent style should be adhered to. My question is simply, then, which format should we use? Once a format is decided upon, the other article should be modified accordingly.

Note: this section has been added to the talk page of both articles. Shiznick 05:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some random other references

I seem to remember Rose calling the Doctor 'Mr Spock' in the episode The empty Child. Would this be worth putting in cultural impact or other references? 9:19 29th June 2007 gonfission

"currently being portrayed by"

Does anyone else agree that it doesn't really make sense to say this in the lead? It's not like there's an ongoing T.V. show and Nimoy and Quinto switch off playing him week to week. I think it would make much more sense to say "The character will be portrayed by both Nimoy and Zachary Quinto in the 2008 film Star Trek. I will change it to this unless anyone disagrees. --DanyaRomulus 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Change it. Sir Rhosis 03:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

one of the few aliens

He is one of the few aliens in the permanent cast: I don't remember any other aliens in the permanent cast? --Fredrick day (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be more correct to say that he's the only alien in the permanent cast. In fact, apart from Spock, I can't think of any other alien character that appeared in more than one episode. (Harry Mudd and perhaps a Star Fleet commodore or two appeared in multiple episodes, but obviously they were all humans.) — Loadmaster (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin of hand gesture

Leonard Nimoy explains the origin of the "Live long and prosper" hand gesture in this article:

• Bowman, David (2002-09-06). "Mr. Spock's nudes". Salon.com. Salon Media Group. Retrieved 2007-12-12. I saw the priestly gentlemen in my congregation that I was attending with my family doing this with their hands over the congregation. [Nimoy makes the Vulcan greeting sign with his right hand!] I was intrigued. I learned later that that was the shape of the letter Shin in the Hebrew alphabet and that was the first letter in "Shekhina." It's also the first letter in the word "Shaddai," which is the name of the almighty. I understood that.... I said to the director, "There should be some special thing that Vulcans do." He didn't quite get it at first. I said, "Well, humans shake hands with each other. Asian people bow to each other. Military people salute. What do Vulcans do?" He said, "Well, OK. What do Vulcans do?' I said, "How about this?" [Nimoy makes the hand gesture.] And she did it in response. And that's how we did it. It's as simple as that. But it resonated very quickly. Within days after that show airing, I started getting people doing this [makes gesture] to me on the street.

I don't normally edit Star Trek, so I'm leaving this for other editors to evaluate. I'm also wondering if interviewer's name is a pseudonym. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry

While it's mentioned in the article for Amanda Grayson, it's not mentioned here that one of Spock's ancestors is (implied to be) Arthur Conan Doyle, quoting a line from Sherlock Holmes in Star Trek VI. Shouldn't that fact be included in this article as well? — Loadmaster (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it, as it's a direct quote from Spock himself. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Spock's use of the quote means that one of his ancestors is implied to be Arthur Conan Doyle. I've always interpreted that scene as Spock taking the credit for the quote. That seemed to be a running gag in this movie, as in the original series - the Klingons claiming that they wrote the "original Hamlet", or Chekov claiming that the Russions invented just about everything. Theepdought (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. Spock said:

An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

So how does that imply that he is taking credit for the quote? — Loadmaster (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Loadmaster - what I meant (that I didn't say clearly) was that Spock is claiming that a Vulcan made the quote rather than a human (Doyle). Theepdought (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to dig around to find the article, but Meyer and Nimoy have both said this was a joke, not meant to imply anything about Spock's actual ancestry, but just a throwaway joke. It comes off in the film as a joke. I can't believe anyone would take this seriously enough to say that Spock was descended from Conan Doyle. The mind boggles. Sir Rhosis (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Spock is not known for telling jokes, so taking what he said at face value, it's hard to come to any other conclusion. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Spock of old would not tell jokes -- this was the reborn, post-Genesis Spock. But no need to quibble, I'll see if I can find a link to where Meyer says it was written and played as a subtle joke. Sir Rhosis (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Should the claim that one of Spocks ancestors is implied to be Arthur Conan Doyle be removed from the article until you find the quote? I ask because I am new here and don't want to piss anyone off want to piss of as few people as I can. --Theepdought (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Believe me, finding the quote is way down on my life's priority list. I'll get around to it someday. As goofy as the assertion is that it is anything else but a joke, leave it be for now, unless another editor comes up with the interview citation. Sir Rhosis (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the current wording is safe, since it's an implied conclusion derived from canonical works:

In the movie Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Spock quotes a line from a Sherlock Holmes novel, saying that it was said by an ancestor of his, implying that he is maternally related to Arthur Conan Doyle.

If anyone discovers that it was meant as a joke, we can change it then. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am new here, so I hope I'm not out of line - but isn't an implied conclusion OR? The policy page on OR states Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It seems to me that the claim that Spock is maternally related to ACD is a conclusion drawn from his "ancestor of mine" quote; yet it is equally valid to conclude that Spock was (mis)attributing the quote to a Vulcan paternal ancestor. Using the logic offered above, one could argue that it is implied that Shakespeare was a Klingon (You haven't studied Hamlet until you've read it in the original Klingon - quote to that effect from the movie). Respectfully, --Theepdought (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it is OR. I always took the line to mean that Spock was descended from Holmes himself, not Doyle. Mdiamante (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This proposal violates the usage of a primary source per WP:OR. As such, I'll be removing the text.

And for those of you who like "in-universe" answers, remember that Star Trek is set in the future, and that by that time, vulcans have had opportunities for experiencing Earth media. Just because an ancestor of Spock's may have used the phrase, doesn't mean that that ancestor originated the phrase. (Which seems to be the presumption above.) - jc37 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

New section

Folks, I've merged in some text from Chemical properties of Mr. Spock's fake ears. That article isn't notable enough to stand on its own, but I've added the text here and redirected. I was sort of surprised to find that there wasn't any discussion of the prosthetics he wore. *shrug* — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can vulcans lie?

The page currently claims vulcans can't lie. Meanwhile, Vulcan_(Star_Trek) lists this as a mere taboo. This inconsistency leaves me confused and scared. Please advise. DanBri (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dept. Color Identification with Cast

In this revision, I added red, blue and gold to the rank column of the character profiles. It seems appropriate to not only identify their rank but their department service color. Especially with the new movie coming out and this being such a major identifier as to the characters. No where else in wiki does this information appear. My changes were reverted once, so I improved them. In the event they are reverted again, I put this argument forth to general wiki consensus as to whether they should be kept and improved upon. Garish is in the eye of the beholder.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that some use text browers or mobile devices to access wikipedia, plus there is the problem with color-blindness, so the colours may not be displayed the same on all browers Bihco (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I used 256 HTML web-safe colours. THey will render on all browsers and platforms identically.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Bihco has said and will add what I have added to the other articles the anonymous user above has edited in this manner, the colours simply add nothing to the article and take away from its clarity. Alastairward (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The different colors also just seem like superfluous trivia. And how do we handle colors with TOS' transition to the films, what with both changes in color schemes and characters' transitions between departments? No, while well intentioned, adding color backgrounds seems unnecessary. --EEMIV (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you say so. I will leave that up to others to weigh in. The franchise has set up clear canon, that gold=command and red-support until the Next Generation ear, blue=science always. Paramount continues to honor this tradition in the release of their merchandise. However, the colour coding of divisions is more than just a costume design element. It is identifiable with the characters. Kirk is a yellow shirt, scotty - red, and Spock is blue. They are hardly superfluous. Finally, these colours continue to be identified with the characters despite the movies. If you wanna argue reconciliation of colours for divisions, then you have to forget that Kirk's early uniforms were actually green and just looked gold under lights. Fact is in the canon universe, gold, red and blue outlast the short-lived colour confusion which might be caused by the movies and just as easily dismissed as the fact the original gold uniforms were actually green.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem (to my reckoning) is that canonicity - while useful from a fanboi POV - is pointedly useless in an encyclopedia wherein real-world criteria take precedence. I would humbly submit that you develop an article about the color classification of Star Trek uniforms. There, you can establish some references and citations for how the color-coding came to be. Simply flashing the dubious badge of canon isn't a ticket to play here. And color-coding the articles is almost assuredly the wrong way to proceed here. Find some citations, make an article, anf then bring the tiopic of color-coding the articles to the Star Trek Wikiproject. Of course, that is just my suggestion, but be aware that I will revert any attempts to change the color scheme of the articles under the Star Trek banner by anyone failing to follow the aforementioned process. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

non canon material

I wonder why information from the novels would be mentioned in this article. In the part detailing instances where Spock has lied, the non-canon novel Avenger is listed. I don't think it should be. 70.54.125.58 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is Alexander?

The notes make repeated reference to a work by "Alexander," but there is no full citation for this source to be found. Someone might want to address this. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ditto. (I post this only because I was coming here to pose the exact same question, and want recognition for my curiosity ;-) ). --EEMIV (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly David Alexander's Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry? --EEMIV (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Much like...

...McCoy. That thing. I removed it because a) it's trivial in this article and b) misleading -- it suggests that Nimoy's hiring "followed suit" to Kelley's, but Nimoy was hired several years before Kelley. The phrasing is also synthesis-ish: yes, Roddenberry knew them both from previous pilots, but to suggest that the overall process of casting one was "much like" the other requires a citation pointing this out/making this claim. --EEMIV (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but only because I am not at home and cannot cite Shatner's Star Trek Memories or Nimoy's I Am Not Spock (and the follow-up I Am Spock). I cannot remember which provided the bit about Roddenberry hiring a lot of the talent from The Lieutenant. I will look it up and bring the cite here, getting a consensus for re-addition. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't catch that a bunch of them were from The Lieutenant (now that I think of it, wasn't Grace Lee Whitney in that group?). Phrasing it in those terms would be swell -- and probably something also to throw into Star Trek: The Original Series. --EEMIV (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I might have to head down to the library, as all my non-daily use books are packed up for the move (best time to buy is now, folks). I'm not sure about Whitney (though the talk around the Desilu water cooler was that she was a very friendly gal). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Goatee

There's been an edit and revert regarding the Goatee section as you can see here. The question is whether his facial hair was a Van Dyke or a Goatee. Discuss this issue if you please and remember to use references. OlYeller^Talktome 05:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

When it was changed to reflect the style of the beard, i reverted. it. If it was reliably cited as a van dyke, we could call it such. In all the media, its been incorrectly identified as a goatee. As the litmus for inclusion is verifiability and not truth (or in this case, correctness), we cannot impose our own knowledge into the article and differentiate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Ulaby, Neda (2008-06-01). "Mr. Spock: The 'Mystery of Masculinity' Embodied". In Character. National Public Radio. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Patterson, Hazelyn (2008-01-08). "Your Turn: Mr. Spock". In Character. National Public Radio. Retrieved 2009-03-16. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool -- thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Spock image

Anyone know why the image was deleted? It looks like a mistake, but in case it wasn't, It's a notable, cited portrayal of the character, unlike the Dan Akroyd, et al skit with ears. I am putting it back in under the depiction section, where it was before; as well, I am also adding in the other portrayals. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I think its best to preserve a chronological order to the images. After Nimoy's placeholder image, which remains the most iconic of the portrayals, we need to follow both chronological as well as article order. One isn't more "important" than the other; thy are both portrayals of the same character. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

One reason it makes sense to put Quinto above is that on high-resolution displays, the Quinto picture gets shoved all the way down into the reception area. That wholly separate section might be a more appropriate place to put the fanboy depiction, i.e. a result of popularity. I can't find anything in the MOS about prioritizing images -- however, Quinto's appearance is actually mentioned in the "depictions" section, whereas Stacey's isn't. --EEMIV (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, everyones display is different. Secondly, I am reacting a bit negatively to the characterization of notable, citable information as fanboy crud.It could be just as easily - and as negatively - suggested that there was a favoritism for Quinto over any other portrayal than Nomoy's, and that would be undue weight as well. I don't know if its in the MOS either, but they are discussed in order of portrayal, and so it follows that the images should be used thusly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The fan actor portrayal of Spock belongs in a "Cultural Influences" section. Erikeltic (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Stacey and other fan portrayals

Unless there is some third-party coverage/commentary on these other actors -- whether in Phase II or elsewhere -- I don't think it's necessary to list them, esp. since they are non-notable actors and there's as yet no indication of third-party commentary on/notability of fan portrayals of Spock specifically (i.e. separate from a notable fan series). This gets into the realm of trivia -- are we also going to list the folks who play Spock in Hidden Frontier? in machanime? the high school play? The trivia about these two actors' appearances is probably more appropriate in the fan series article itself. Simply listing them here without any context about their performance, or indication that anyone cared enough about their performances to write something about it, is tangential trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, having added them, I disagree. The Wikipedia is full of actors without articles who portray parts in notable films. As they are the most notable portrayals of Spock, we use them. This isn't a slippery slope, as you are suggesting. I don't recall Spock being portrayed in Hidden Frontier, but then, I don't follow that as much (production quality is lower while 90210-esque drama and bad acting is high), and I don't recall other portrayals that meet the threshold for inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't referred to "crud" (NB above). I am saying, however, that the relatively new and popular fan series does not convey notability to individual actors' portrayals or appearances in it. Cawley's performance garnered a smidgen of third-party commentary in Wired, hence the inclusion of that specific portrayal in the Kirk article. I see barely any evidence that Stacey's portrayal has garnered even that much attention -- but his affiliation with the movie and apparently close likeness to Quinto etc. seems worth including. But barely -- Google isn't the best meter for notability, but "Brandon+Stacey"+Spock&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f searching for "'Brandon Stacey' Spock" rapidly degenerates into unreliable fan sites. The other two -- plus however many other fan portrayals there are out there -- don't even have that much commentary or discussion. Is there "favoritism" for Quinto? Only insofar as he's involved in a significant studio release that has already received significant third-party coverage of his specific portrayal; not so much these others. --EEMIV (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to get back to this so late, EEMIV. I agree that there is a lot of unreliable info out there, but I think the characterization of Cawley's mention in the Wired article as a "smidgen" is a bit unfair. Anything over a column inch is pretty much an article. Cawley had the entire page, and Stacey had 2-3 column inches. We aren't going on an on about Stacey's portrayal except to take a direct quote from the notable article we do have. If folk start adding in Stacey's favorite color or ice cream flavor, we can begin knuckling down. i think we are on solid ground here, however. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on this issue has been reached in Captain Kirk. If you would like to include Phase II's actors in this wiki, it should be within a "Cultural Impact" section. Erikeltic (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As there is no cultural impact section, the image is fine where it is, near the text referring to both the actor and the series. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You put the image beside the events of the Star Trek films. How is the image relevent to those events? Perhaps you or Arcayne should make a cultural impact section so you can keep it in there with all of the other Phase II or spoof information. Erikeltic (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps - perhaps you could also stop trying to push your point. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. I'll let you take it down then. Erikeltic (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan film portrayals

There is currently a debate within the Captain Kirk wiki over whether to include non-studio (fan) portrayals of fictional characters. That decision will have an impact on Spock's page, as he is the only other Trek character with fans listed in his biography. Erikeltic (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Now please leave the article alone until there is an outcome there. Maybe you might want to post a new section at the Star Trek wikiproject, anf get some feedback there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:James T. Kirk#Fan film inclusion poll. Cool Hand Luke 15:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A new source

Found this while seeking image info. Thought it might prove useful. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Apparently a week of hashing out these very issues in James T. Kirk wasn't enough and now an editor (not me) feels that we need to do it here. Please review the notes and consensus reached about the placement of fan-films within the primary character biographies here: Talk:James_T._Kirk

Everyone interested and/or anyone who believes that consensus has not been reached on this issue can review those discussions. Please see the changes made here from consensus to non-consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spock&diff=278400573&oldid=278388346 Do we actually now need to go through this entire process again in Spock just because one editor refuses to accept that the consensus is fan portrayals belong in the cultural impact section of a ficitonal biography. Seriously? Erikeltic (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, perhaps you are looking at a consensus for one thing and confusing it with another. The consensus found at the Kirk page was in regards to infobox entries of fan-film actors. This isn't that. As has been pointed out at least three differnt times before, read WP:BRD. If you aren;t prepared to actually read the policies, do yourself the favor of not throwing them about, Your bold change moving the image elsewhere was reverted. As it was representative of the existing consensus, it is now your job to seek to change it. Hint: it doesn't change because you keep edit-warring it back in. It only works by discussion. It is high time you learned that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, take it to Wikiproject Star Trek, and get one definitive answer, instead of rehashing the same debate over and over on different pages. Arcayne, this isn't BRD, it's WP:POINT, and begging for a topic ban. THF (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that's unmitigated bs, THF. This fine young person is moving an image all over the article in defiance of consensus, and has the nonsensical gall to call it part of yet another article's consensus. And THF, I urge you ro actually read BRD - it is precisely because BRD is being completely ignored. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, writing these sorts of guidelines (and editing pan-project discord) is one of the main reasons that Wikiprojects exist. Cool Hand Luke 14:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not arguing that, CHL. I do take offense to a new editor misrepresenting a consensus on another page and threatening me. It's not just uncool, its disruptive, pointy and uncivil. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly when and how did I threaten you? I will take it to Project Star Trek, rest assured. Erikeltic (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Splendid. When you do, post the link here, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Dual picture for infobox

I think that, with the restart of the franchise, we need to create a side-by-side image of Nimoy/Quinto for the infobox. I think that the fan portrayals, while significant (it seems to have kept the series alive while Paramount kept trying to kill it), should be there as well, but I am somewhat flexible about that. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than replicating this discussion across all the character articles, let's please keep it centralized at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Dual_picture_for_infobox. --EEMIV (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Stacy references

Not sure why they keep getting removed, but Stacy references keeps getting removed, and its growing tedious. Stacy's comments are reliably cited, and speak specifically to the incorporation of Spock's interpretation into his characterization. It isn't an ad for the fan series, but is rather a comment by a player in the fan series who portrays this same fictional character, and one which has particular relevance to the portrayal in not only the fan series, but the original Nimoy interpretation of the character and the more recent one by Quinto. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the fact that it keeps getting removed by different people suggests that they agree it has undue weight in the article. Do you have a connection or COI to this series? The story about him mistaking his buddy for spock is trival in the extreme. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You are going to find me a much more amicable person to discuss this with if you don't make the mistake of accusing me of impropriety; its one of those things that might get your head handed to you in short order.

Now, that bit of unpleasantness aside - we have cited information specifically linking Stacy to both Spock and the new movie. That the actor speaks out on his interpretation of his portrayal of the character is not undue; its actually specifically on point. I dig that a lot of folk don't like/hate/are unaware of/ are terrified of/whatever the fan series. Really, I get it. I am not a huge fan of t myself. However, our personal preferences/discriminations aside, we do not remove cited information, and the information present is not being offered in a way that offers undue importance.

Additionally, please recall that you might want to follwo WP:BRD; you removed text, it was reverted. Now, sit down, have a cup of tea and discuss the matter. If you find yourself unable to do that, then I am sure we can find a method of escalation that can help us to find a resolution to the problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As with the recent kerfluffle with Erikeltic over dual images, your antagonistic tone isn't helpful, especially language about handing someone their head. Cameron Scott may have been best off not removing the content again, but you help things exactly 0% by speaking down to someone. The pleasant addendum at the end about tea and discussion doesn't diminish the inappropriateness of your tone earlier in the post. That your antagonism has repeatedly been an issue on article talk pages suggests you might likewise be well served with a cup of tea. --EEMIV (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the content dispute, perhaps the fan-actors' take on the character is better off in the critical reaction section, similar to what we did with Kirkley. --EEMIV (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, but someone outrightly stating that I have some COI is pretty much accusing me of dishonesty, and I am going to take exception to that. Every time. You want pleasant, be pleasant; it isn't that hard to figure out. I admitted my prior snark at Erikeltic was inappropriate, and apologized for it. However, expecting me to take someone calling me dishonest with a smile is unrealistic. My "antagonism" isn't so much an issue when one considers the object of those posts. Good faith doesn't mean turning a blind eye to bad behavior. No one was talking down to Cameron; I told him that insulting me wasn't going to be an effective discussion method; I didn't call him a feltch monkey or claim that his edits smelt of elderberries. I just told him that I wouldn't tolerate being treated that way.

Now, let's look at this whole "undue weight" argument. Someone thinks that its undue weight to mention the following:

Phase II executive producer James Cawley, who appears as a background character in the film and plays Kirk in the fan series, confused Stacy for Quinto on the film's set. When asked if he were going to incorporate parts of J. J. Abrams' re-imagining of the series, Stacey noted that he wanted to focus on Nimoy's interpretation in the original series, "as that is what Phase II is all about"

Now, how on earh is that undue weight? And what, pray tell, is being given undue weight? And actor who portrays the subject of the article in other media is asked in a reliably-sources article if he was going to have his portrayal of the character reflect the interpretation of the same character by another actor, and he responds. Not rocket science. Could someone explain it to me, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Other portrayals in Paramount's Star Trek releases

Spock has been portrayed in Paramount's Star Trek TV and film works by several actors other than the three currently listed in the infobox. Specifically, I'm referring to these actors:

• Billy Simpson provided the voice of Spock as a child in the animated Star Trek episode "Yesteryear" (1973).
• Carl Steven played Spock at age 9 in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984).
• Vadia Potenza played Spock at age 13 in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
• Stephen Manley played Spock at age 17 in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
• Joe W. Davis played Spock at age 25 in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
• Carey Scott provided the voice of "Young Spock" in a deleted scene of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989).

(Spock's birth is also portrayed in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, but I have been unable to find the name of the infant actor who played Spock in that scene.)

Is there a reason for the omission of these actors from the infobox and the body of the article? I understand why fan film portrayals of Spock are controversial, but these are portrayals by professional actors in Star Trek episodes and movies produced by Paramount Pictures. Pat Berry (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

...and you forgot the stuntmen. Unless any of these actors' portrayls have received any significant coverage/discussion by third-party sources, it seems trivial to include these. --EEMIV (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to add, these appearances are fairly trivial. The TSFS scenes especially, a minute's worth of Pon Farr and some yelling basically. Alastairward (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Jacob Kogan, who plays Spock as a boy in Star Trek XI, has more reason to be there since he had a more substantial role than any of the young actors from STIII, and one that required talent (and he pulled it off brilliantly IMO). Nightandday (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I dig what you are saying, but I think until someone else points it out, we are left with just that, your opinion. Unfortunately, we cannot use that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Kogan played Spock in Star Trek XI is a fact, not an opinion, therefore, whatever one thinks of including or not including any of the young actors who played Spock in various movies in the article, it doesn't make sense to list only the young actors from ST III as being relevant to this issue, while leaving out Kogan. Nightandday (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Including all of the kids who played these characters smacks of trivia to me and is not worthy of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Memory Alpha. Erikeltic (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Type of facial hair

It seems we need a source that asserts whether Spock has a goattee or a van dyck. Until a source comes up, I suggest that goatee -- which is the term that seems overwhelmingly common -- should remain. Any heartfelt dissent? --EEMIV (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, just replace all references to a specific type with the generic "beard"? --EEMIV (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Spock had a a circle beard because it is technically a goatee with a connected mustache, but a Van Dyke and a cirlce beard are both still types of goatees. Perhaps in the initial reference it can be called a circle beard goatee and then just a goatee there after. In modern times, all three terms are acceptable and most people probably think of Dick Van Dyke and not Anthony Van Dyck when that term comes up in conversation.

Here are a couple of links:

http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/001361.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_dyke_beard

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-van-dyke-and-a-goatee.htm

http://www.wikihow.com/Grow-a-Goatee

Erikeltic (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, all that terribly interesting linkage aside, I think that its called a goatee or a beard, not a goatee. I think some middle ground is to be found, so long as we don't synthesize an answer. Remember, what our reasoned definitions of what the beard style is called is not allowed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude wtf are we talking about Spocks beard ☺ i don't get it ♫Zmank arrow dude haha face♫ (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Big picture of some nobody

How come some nobody gets a big picture in the top section and Quito gets relegated below? --88.109.196.57 (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the term some nobody is very fair and does not Assume Good Faith. Phase II is a well-documented fan series that deserves a nod. I agree that it is in the wrong location, but these issues are being worked out here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikeltic (talk • contribs)

Relationship with his father (and mother)

I added a blurb about his father. mostly trying to fit in the stuff about his blood type, but realized there is nothing about his mother or father. They were pivotal in both TOC and TNG, as well as other series and movies, particularly the latest. Can someone else who is more of a fan flesh out that relationship? Bytebear (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Got a source for any of that? Seems like a lot of original research. DP76764 (Talk) 04:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can get a source in the morning, but the edit about the blood type is valid. I don't know that it belongs because we aren't worried about canon, but the statement was factual. Erikeltic (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Spock's demise

Well, now we know how Ambassador Spock dies, or at least how he disappears from the prime universe. I suppose we can assume that people in the prime universe/timeline will assume that Spock was killed by the obliteration of Romulus. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not our job to suss that out, friend. That's more a question for the forum boards and fan-balls. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Depiction, paragraph 3

Wow, there sure is a lot of information crammed into that one paragraph, I worked it a little to make it slightly more accurate, added a word or two that were missing, and tweaked the grammar a tiny bit, but I'm not 100% happy with it still. It's still an almost overwhelming amount of info for one paragraph, it's almost a bunch of point form notes strung together. Anyone got time/desire to help come up with a draft here that we could drop into place instead of what's there, maybe slow down the amount of info that the reader gets all at once? Break it out into more than one paragraph maybe? --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 01:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternate timeline vs 2009 film

This has see-sawed back and forth a few times, so it seems a good idea to come here and hash it out. For my part, I think 2009 film is the more important fact, whereas the alternative universe stuff is in-universe, and secondary to the film. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Was Spock ever married?

I don't mean by this the episode in the original series in which Spock is conned into gladitorial combat with Kirk for a scheming Vulcan girlfriend whom Spock promptly dumps. In the New Generation episode, Sarek, Picard tells his officers that he met old Sarek previously, "years ago, at his son's wedding." Picard presumably wasn't even born, certainly not yet traveling in space, when that original series episode (without a wedding) took place. No mention is ever made of Spock ever being married in any film or TV episode. It could not have been a wedding of Sybok, since his existence (or at least his connection to Sarek) was utterly unknown until the fifth movie, ST: The Final Frontier, where he becomes known only shortly before he dies, so even someone then in Starfleet wouldn't have been in attendance at a wedding of Sybok. In a subsequent TNG episode, Unification I (in which Sarek dies while Picard tries to track down Spock on Romulus), Picard says he met Spock only once, and Spock is repeatedly spoken of as "Sarek's son" as if Sarek had no other son. So a question arises, was the wedding Picard mentioned that of Spock or of some other son of Sarek (presumably born after the events in The Final Frontier)?? Sussmanbern (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A subject of much speculation for which I'm sure we'll never have a definitive answer. --EEMIV (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Full Name

Let me start by writing that I know in This Side of Paradise Spock says "You couldn't pronounce it.", but it remains to be seen if he meant that literally. I read on several websites that his name is S'chn T'gai Spock, which is apparently first revealed in Star Trek novel "Ishmael" (ISBN 0671554271; 1 May 1985). Does anyone have this novel; can this be verified? If so, we could at least mention that this name was mentioned in that novel. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• I already found two books that mention this name[2][3]. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Ishmael (and all licensed Trek fiction, for that matter), is that none of it is canon - only what appears on-screen is official in the license-holders eyes. Neither of the two books mentioned in the comment above would be reliable sources for this either, since neither one was published under license from Paramount, and no other name has ever been used on-screen. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 film

I believe the 2009 film cannot be considered cannon because of numerous inconsistencies with the rest of the series. In the bar scene in the beginning of the film Uhura orders synthetic Cardassian ale. The federation does not meet the cardassians until 2348. The ale is replicated. Replicators are not invented yet. Nero's "mining ship" is way to large and powerful. It was supposedly built around 2379 and the beginning of the film takes place in 2387, eight years after Star Trek Nemesis. The producers are not going to tell us that in eight years the romulans were building ships so massive that Nero's ship is "small". There are numerous other minor inconsistencies, but these are some of the main ones. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

None of this matters insofar as the article is concerned. There are lots of other Star Trek interpretation/response fora for this kind of material. Wikipedia:NOT#FORUM. --EEMIV (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Canon is irrelevant. This is not Memory Alpha. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I know talk pages are not forums. I just think this should be noted. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek guidelines say that non cannon topics should be noted as such. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

3D Chess Trophies - Episode 176?

The reference to the episode should be an inline citation, but more importantly, is ambiguous. There were only 79 episodes of the original series; to which episode does "episode 176" refer?

Gbsrd (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Spock used as a reference for a TX Supreme Court ruling.

[4] [5] Footnote 21 in the ruling. I think it's the first time a court referenced Star Trek in a ruling. lol Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Pre-empting an Edit War

Hey EEMIV, what gives? I actually take time and effort to start updating this article (currently C-rated) and all you can do is swoop in and [revert] most of it? Except for a bunch of IP vandalism, there isn't a whole lot going on with this article. At least I actually care about making it better. And I also put an {{underconstruction}} tag on the top of the page. So maybe you can wait a bit until passing judgement rather than being hasty about it. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's break it down

"Spock is closely associated with the voyages of the Starship Enterprise, serving as science officer and first officer, and later as commanding officer of the late 23rd- and early 24th Century iterations of the vessel. After retiring from the United Federation of Planets Starfleet, he goes on to serve as a Federation Ambassador, responsible for the détente between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. In his later years he serves as Federation Ambassador to Romulus and becomes involved in the ill-fated attempt to save the Romulan Empire from a rogue supernova."

In one short paragraph I've summarised his career in the nutshell. The detail follows in the main section further down the page. If I'm a user dropping by to read about Spock, I would expect to see a short summary of the character's IU history. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

---

"Spock's mother and father are Human and Vulcan respectively. This mixed heritage, as well being the first Vulcan to serve in Starfleet serves as an important plot element in many of the character's appearances. Along with James T. Kirk and Leonard McCoy he is one of the three central characters in the Original Series episodes and films."

The second sentence is a statement of OOU fact. However it would make no sense without the first sentence. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Review

Since there was a call at WT:TREK, I've appeared! Some general impressions and comments.

• I think it's better from a readability standpoint and in keeping with WP:WAF to put the development of the character before the character summary, and sprinkle some of the work-specific content into the relevant sections (namely, Spock's death.) As it currently reads, the first section of the article is a repetitive, "In X, Y..." You can break all those paragraphs into a more streamlined form.
• File:Star Trek-Jacob Kogan-Child Spock.jpg doesn't meet NFCC.
• Obviously, the biggest shortcoming right now is the lack of general reception. It's the hardest to find, but the most important. Forget UGO, he's been a massively important character for decades. There's got to be more scholarship on how he was recieved, as well as the ethical considerations of the Vulcan logic (although some of that may simple be too specific for Spock and should go in the Vulcan article. Part of the problem may be the division into "Reception"/"Cultural impact" sections. How was the character originally seen by critics back in '67?
• I think quoting the Spock principle in full seems like overkill.
• Facial hair as it's own section? Eh.... I think the image can go too.
• No love for TAS?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey David, thanks for the comments, I've got a few comments/queries, please let me know what you think:

1. I'd thought about changing the order of Development and Depiction, but I wasn't sure if Wikiproject Star Trek may have a preferred template or if this has already been hashed out elsewhere. When I started editing the article, I compared it against its peers in particular Kirk and McCoy for obvious reasons, and those also have Depiction before Development. Also, the only FA-rated Star Trek character article I could find is for Khan Noonien Singh, and that one also has the Character stuff prior to Design. Your thoughts?
2. You also note that "the first section of the article is a repetitive". I would love to expand it, but based on the reversions done against my edits last Friday, I am worried that it's going to get deleted for being "IU Fancruft". I would also note that Kirk, McCoy and Khan's articles have a lot more story summary in them. Is it OK then for me to expand on it? I agree that it's a bit thin and repetitive, but I also don't want to be wasting my time. (And the iteration just before I got started was just a massive chunky paragraph that was impossible to read, which is why I split it up a bit).
3. This is only the third or 4th image that I've uploaded. I was pretty sure that it met the threshold - can you please explain further on why it's not NFCC? And if this isn't NFCC, then why is the pic of Zachary Quinto NFCC?
4. Any thoughts on where I could find more on critical reception? There's virtually no newspaper coverage scanned in that dates before the 1980s, and I don't really have the resources to go after the scholarly stuff.
5. when I quoted the SCoT decision - my thoughts were along the line that when you see this sort of thing happening, Spock isn't really just for hardcore geekdom anymore, he's mainstream, and let's highlight that fact
6. I'm happy to kill the facial hair section, but it was already there before I arrived.
7. I didn't mention TAS because it's such a grey area w.r.t canonicity. I could put stuff in, but again if I start quoting from "Yesteryear" and that Spock used to have a pet sehlat, that I'm just wasting my time once the deletionists arrive.

Thanks very much for taking the time to respond. Cheers. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Jake

Well, you don't need to go into that much detail in the TAS stuff, but mention that he appeared in the series and Nimoy lent his voice (it's out-of-universe importance, regardless of canon status.) In regards to Khan, I structured it the way I did because the "design" section also focuses on some scholarly interpretations. Making one section work before the other really just depends on how you structure the information presented; for example some video game articles have a "plot" section before the "gameplay", and vice versa. If you want to keep it as is, you're going to need to slim down some areas and structure it more as an introduction, i.e. "General info about Spock. Enterprise stuff. In the movies. Blah blah blah", keeping enough in so that when you hit the design readers aren't going, "wait, they designed what about what? I didn't have any knowledge of that before!"

The appearances are a bit more in-depth in Khan, but I could get away with it because he's only had two canon appearances. Unfortunately you've got to condense a lot more Spock history into a relatively smaller confines. Forget about the subheads. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Rockin' the Spock

Yeah this sentence here doesn't have a period: Spock decides to attend Starfleet Academy and serve as a Starfleet officer, rather than attend the Vulcan Science Academy, contrary to his father's wishes[5] The relationship between Spock and Sarek is strained, often turbulent, although rooted in an underlying respect and carefully restrained love for each other. After the word wishes there should be a period before the. This is considered incorrect grammer. You can find this sentence in the Background section of this article. Please make this change. Thank you.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Worth Adding References or Links to an Element of Spock's "Proposed" Family History?

I refer to Barbara Hambly's book Ishmael. I can't get this disambiguated title to come out as an internal Wikipedia link, so I'll just paste the text here and hope someone else can fix it -- sorry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_%28Star_Trek%29

Anyway, in this book Hambly sends Spock back in time through the Guardian -- to the world of the TV series "Here Come the Brides". And she gets him involved with a character in that series, Aaron Stempel (spelled "Stemple" in her book) . . . who was played by none other than Mark Lenard. Of course, since he's a human, she makes him an ancestor of the Grayson family -- but it might be worth either discussing or at least linking on the main page here, too.

-- jalp (a wand'ring wikiminstrel I) . . . 209.172.14.203 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. We can't include what happens to Spock in every book ever written about him. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

While I'll admit it's interesting, (non-)canonicity of the novels is a problem. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Spock Principle Edit War

[6], [7], [8] Shall we discuss? So what exactly is it that you object to? The content itself, or the prominence given to it by placing it in a quote box? I might be willing to concede the latter, but it's no more "trivial" than anything else in the Cultural Impact section, and serves as a good way to illustrate Spock's acceptance in the main stream of thought, rather than being a narrow pop cultural reference. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It is trivial and unnecessary. It in no way improves the article and should be left out. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 23:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It's not an "edit war" when one editor comes in and adds material against consensus without discussing it beforehand. WP:BRD may be helpful here, but in the short term I suggest you discuss these changes before you simply add them back into the article. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 23:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty disingenuous of you, when I'm the one who started the "D" in BRD. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion. What else would you like to delete, because pretty much the entire section is trivial depending on how you look at it. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The picture of Spock as a child, for starters. As for the rest of it, you have my opinion. I would suggest we involve some of the other editors that have contributed this article (like Mike) and see what their thoughts are before any additional reverts take place. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 23:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This material has been in for a couple of months now. I would suggest that your deletions are what's against consensus. I challenge you to produce the diffs for the discussion where a consensus was reached to not include the quote from the SCoT ruling. Also, I added about 17K worth of material to this article from April 1 to April 9. Maybe that would have been a better timeframe to voice your objections. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. when was the last time you or Mike posted an edit to this article that wasn't a reversion or a minor edit? Just checked the history. July 2009. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

July 2009 is when the article achieved perfection and, until your edits, didn't require any subsequent revisions.  :) Thanks for noticing though. It's appreciated. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Perfection isn't a C-rating. Although it's good to know that my efforts haven't been for naught. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And your sneaky attempt to imply that this has to do with WP:OWN is disingenuous, given that you're edit warring over an article that you haven't substantively involved yourself with in almost two years, but are claiming to understand the consensus on what should and shouldn't be included. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:OWN because when I last edited the article is irrelevant. David Fuchs, EEMIV, Mike, and I all seem to believe inclusion of the "Spock Principle" in the article is unnecessary and, as David put it, overkill. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Where's the diff for EEMIV's opinion on the matter? Also, as you can see from the discussion above, I discussed it with David Fuchs, and if he really objected to it's inclusion, I'm sure he's more than capable to removing the offending quote himself and doesn't need you to speak for him. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is going nowhere and is non-productive; this ins't a forum. David's statement is above, you have mine, and you can see Mike's revert. EEMIV and other editors can make their own decision on this subject. As it stands right now it appears to be 3-1 for its exclusion. If you can make an argument that inspires other editors, go for it. Until then it should stay out per current consensus. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, this isn't a forum - it's a discussion of the appropriateness of content as per WP:BRD. "EEMIV and other editors can make their own decision on this subject." Yes they can, but you're the one putting words in their mouths. And it's 3-2 if you include Mattbuck's edit earlier. Oh, and don't forget that Polling is not a substitute for discussion. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the tag-team reverts by you and Mike are an example of Multiple-editor ownership. Technically, in combination you've already violated WP:3R, but I won't hold it against you. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR, as I have not had 3 reverts in 24 hours. You need to look at the edit history a little better before you even go there. See my notes above. Until you can change consensus, we're done. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said that you violated it individually, but rather you violated it in combination with Mike. In fact, I even sought clarification on the matter here. So actually, I have looked at the edit history quite closely. I love your dismissive tone, though. Don't forget to be CIVIL. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

@Erikeltic - You're assuming consensus where there appears to be none. Can't get consensus without discussion, which an edit war isn't. 67.193.96.49 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. 67.193.96.49 is in Belleville, Ontario. Based on previous edits, I think I know another editor from that area. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is interesting. So what exactly are you claiming here? Why don't you say it outright instead of implying it in veiled terms? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Guys, you really do not want to turn this into a flame war. I suggest you both step back from the article for a little while and cool down. Nothing can get settled if you are accusing each other. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone - he is -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

←And you're still responding like a child. Honestly, people, it's a paragraph. Is it really worth this much garbage? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, but I don't really see either of us backing down. Although by default it would seem that Erik has won this one, since the article is currently sitting at his last reversion, and I have no intention of running afoul of 3RR. Otherwise, we'll have to wait for a group consensus to materialise, which probably won't happen until the holiday is over. What do you suggest? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

---

I think there's nothing wrong with mentioning the Spock principle, but we really shouldn't be quoting that which we can summarize. Considering the prose established what the Spock principle is, and that it's been quoted in legal decisions, what does the quote add? (I'm not sure if there are non-free content considerations as well, as I'm not sure if a judge's opinion is in the public domain or not.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal decisions (at least in the U.S.) are considered public domain - after all, where does legal precedent come from, if people aren't allowed to access, quote, and interpret from them? Anyways:

• "state and local laws and court decisions are in the public domain" [9]
• "For our legal and political system to function properly, we must all have free access to official legal documents such as official documents [etc.]. For this reason, all such works are in the public domain [10] -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there something in WP:MOS or some related policy that says we can't quote this? To put it another way: it's hard to argue one way or another when something should be quoted or summarized. Most if not all quotations are able to summarized, and yet we see quotes in articles throughout Wikipedia. What's the bright line, if any? Does this quote in any way detract from the article content? In fact, I even tried to compromise by moving the quote from a box to a block [11], to reduce the perceived prominence of it, and yet that still got deleted. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's overly weighty and, as David said, can be summarized. Its inclusion is unnecessary. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Erik - I'm well aware what your thoughts are on the matter - but I'm sure David can speak for himself -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Erik, since you agree that it can be summarized, then do you also agree that this edit which removed all references to the "Spock principle" was unncessary?

Furthermore, I would note that your last reversion left the summary unsourced, which I had to fix [12], or are you now saying that unsourced claims are acceptable in Wikipedia? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My two strips of latinum: the term "Spock principle" is a neologism (or whatever you call a made-up phrase) that it appears is used only in that one medical dispatch text. The current phrasing of that paragraph implies (or I at least infer) that the Texas court decision refers not only to the movie quote, but also uses the term "Spock principle" -- which it doesn't. At a minimum, I think the term "Spock principle" needs to go away. My suggestion for actual article improvement is: find a source that identifies Spock's mantra as a reflection of utilitarianism, and phrase that paragraph along the lines of, "Spock's utilitarian assertion that 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'[ref#] is cited in the blah blah Texas court case." Ideally, the piddly little sentence can get tacked on to the end of something else. --EEMIV (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with EEMIV on this point. The phrase currently doesn't deserve its own section; I think inclusion should be based on what other elements of a similar theme you can aggregate together--scholarly views of Spock, what have you. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, if that's the consensus, then fine. Is one of you going to post the edit? I don't really feel inclined lest I fall afoul of Mike and Erik again. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is consensus. I can not do the edit if you'd prefer; I could care less as long as it's fixed. EEMIV can do the edit if he would like as he has done many great edits to this and other Trek pages in the past. His views are the same as mine on this issue, so I have no objection to either he or David making the change. Erikeltic ^(Talk)!

Yes, there is now consensus. Whereas before there was none, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. Does this statement support your position in anyway whatsoever or is it just another inflammatory non-sequitur? Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Thanks. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 17:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that you've got to wait for consensus to actually occur, instead of just assuming it's there. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What's inflammatory is this pain I'm feeling in my .... -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. --EEMIV (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks EEMIV. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Jacob Kogan/Young Spock image

[13] Would user:Erikeltic kindly explain his edit summary which states: "Image clearly doesn't meet NFCC". As it was uploaded in early April and has withstood almost two months of scrutiny from his fellow editors, I would suggest that it is not clear. Furthermore, I think the NFCC justification provided for the Kogan image is superior to that of the Quinto image, which was uploaded in May 2009, and so Erik has had a whole two years to remove the latter image from this article. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. You keep addressing time frames on this article and seem to pointing out that you and you alone have been the driving force behind it for ____ <-- (insert time here). You really should familiarize yourself with WP:OWN before you make that argument again. It isn't helping your cause. I made the statement to you that the picture was unnecessary, David pointed out that it doesn't meet NFCC, so I removed it. Why it was included in the first place is really beyond me, but please don't mistake the fact that it was there for a while as evidence that it should have been there in the first place. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And I specifically asked for a reason why it's not considered NFCC, but neither of you seem willing or able to do that. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is my last response to you tonight until other editors have a chance to add their voice. Again, Wikipedia is not a forum and should not be treated as one. First, the picture you uploaded meets none of the requirements of WP:NFCC. Read the guideliness to find out what that means; I'm not going to spell it out for you. Second, the other image was published in a Wired magazine as a secondary publication, has contextual significance to the new film, and is related to the content about the 2009 film. The NFCC-failing image of "Spock as a boy" is totally unnecessary here, adds nothing whatsoever to the article, and is clearly copyrighted material. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not sure how you think this is a forum, as opposed to being a discussion as per BRD. Since you're the one objecting to its inclusion, I would suggest that it's incumbent upon you to properly explain why. In fact, if you object to the image so much, why don't you initiate an AfD on it, so we can have a proper discussion. In other words: convince me. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, you have my answers to both issues. Now we should allow other editors to have their own voices heard, so I am going to walk away for the evening and/or until that happens. As for "convincing you", I don't need to convince you of anything. To quote WP policy, "It is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How odd, I thought that this was your "last response to [me] tonight"?

And as for "It is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" I believe I've already done that in the original upload summary. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this the dispute I've been asked to weigh in on? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, but you certainly can. The dispute in question is the one above and is regarding the Spock principle. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we reach a consensus here as well?

This discussion has been stalled for several days now. As Spock's father has made his thoughts known here and here, can we now try to make some progress at reaching a consensus? Since my opinion on the matter is pretty well known, I'll keep try to keep further comments to a minimum unless necessary. Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'd recommend removal, unless sources can be provided that show the role was the subject of a significant amount of critical commentary and the image is necessary for reader comprehension of said commentary. Otherwise it doesn't meet WP:NFCC, no way you hack it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• I also recommend removal. The image is no more important to the content of the article than those actors that played the progressively aging Spock in Star Trek III. In addition, unless SarekofVulcan states that the image should be included in the article, his feelings that it meets the NFCC cut should not be interpreted as support for its inclusion in the article itself. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"In addition, unless SarekofVulcan states that the image should be included in the article, his feelings that it meets the NFCC cut should not be interpreted as support for its inclusion in the article itself." Hm, seems to me that you're just as guilty of interpreting someone else's words and actions. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this edit answers your question. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me borrow some words from another editor that were written above and use them to respond here. "Erik Jake - I'm well aware what your thoughts are on the matter - but I'm sure David Sarek can speak for himself." --Jake Fuersturm Erikeltic

More sniping? I would have thought you'd know better by now after yesterday's debacle? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you can find this statement objectionable, since you're the one who made it in the first place. I find it pretty ironic that you call my statement sniping when in the very next sentence you're far more confrontational. Furthermore this type of thing isn't necessary. You were the one that wrote "Since my opinion on the matter is pretty well known, I'll keep try to keep further comments to a minimum unless necessary." Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The key point being "unless necessary". -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your statements to me at this point are not necessary. Your opinion has been noted for all to see. Do you just need to have the last word? Is that what it is? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, you should not use Sarek's views on this image making the "NFCC cut" as evidence that he believes it should be included here. I'm sure if Sarek feels it should be included he he will make it known to all of us very clearly. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, what's evidence that he believes it should be included here is his reversion of your edit -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to revert his revert if you feel so strongly about it though ..... -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That is in error and (now for the third time) you should not infer his views on the copyright status of the image--and subsequent revert which was directly related to the copyright status--as his views for its inclusion. You wrote to me that David could speak for himself and yet now you seem unwilling to let Sarak speak for himself. Why is that? If he feels that it should be in or out, I am certain he will let us all know very clearly. As for your suggestion to me to revert his revert, are you saying you no longer object to the picture being removed from the article? I don't want to put words in your mouth or infer a meaning that isn't there. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"As for your suggestion to me to revert his revert, are you saying you no longer object to the picture being removed from the article?" Now's who's putting words in who's mouth? Nope, I agree with his revert of your edit. I only wanted to see if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean ask for clarification of another editor's ambiguous rather than just infer his or her meaning? Yup; my money is right where my mouth is Jake. That's why I asked. So how is any of this "keeping your statements at a minimum?" How are your statements at this point at all helpful to the discussion about whether or not to include this picture in the article? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As I responded above, the key point to my earlier statement being "unless necessary". You've made it necessary. Now, are you going to cease the personal attacks, or are we going to do this dance (again). And so you know, I have asked SarekOfVulcan to contribute to this discussion. Whether or not you decide to wait for him before making another comment of your own is up to you. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, demonstrating that you must have the last word. For the record, all I said was that you should not infer his feelings about a copyright as being his feelings for the picture's inclusion. That's it. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't care about the copyright status of the image, but I do believe the image doesn't belong in the article - the actor's appearance is only a minor footnote in the history of the character's portrayal... MikeWazowski (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I also agree with the image's removal, although more because of the article than the actual image. Per WP:NFCC #8: the image's presence does not significantly aid in readers' understanding of the subject, and its omission does not impede understanding. Were the article expanded to include e.g. discussion of the makeup and prostheses, considerations to maintain continuity with Star Trek III/TAS young-Spock appearances, third-party commentary on young actor's resemblance (or not) to Quinto or Nimoy, etc., then yes, I could see the image clearing #8. In it's current state, however, the article does not warrant the image's inclusion. --EEMIV (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with removing the image as well. Non-free images need contextual significance, and I do not consider Kogan's role major enough to warrant the use of such an image. In contrast, I am fine with the Nimoy image because there is context in the article body that the image supports. For the Quinto image, his role is relatively major, but I think that it could use more context (perhaps likeness to Nimoy's Spock or makeup detail) to warrant its inclusion more strongly. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's five editors for removal, one editor to keep. At what point should we put a pin in this and remove it from the article? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's done. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Spock's death

This section seems overly weightly to me as it focuses on a very small portion of the total development of the character. The block quote seems very odd placed and could be reduced or converted to inline text. FWIW, the section related to Kirk's death is much smaller and is in the Depiction section. It's worth pointing out that the Kirk article has already been a Good Article nominee. Thoughts? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to conpare Spock's death to Kirk's death, don't forget Spock's death at the time was a much more significant event in Star Trek, since iirc it was the first time a major character died (not like those redshoirt dudes). Kirk's death in Generations was more than 10 years later, and wasn't as big a deak. And Spock's death and recovery was a major plot point in two more movies (Shatner's ghost-written Kirk novels aren't quite the same thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chartered Wombat (talk • contribs) 04:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the section of the article is overly weighty. The block quote also seems very clunky and out of place. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 12:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The importance of Spock's death does have something to do with the relative weight given to it.... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

First Vulcan in Starfleet?

"Spock's mixed human-Vulcan heritage, as well being the first Vulcan to serve in Starfleet...." Is there a citation for the character Mr. Spock being the first Vulcan in Starfleet? I can not find any canon reference for this. Can anyone smarter than I, provide a citation for this? Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I thought there was a line or two in TOS, probably in one of the early Season I episodes (I don't think it was Journey to Babel), but I can't remember. I seem to recall it being a mention of Spock being the first Vulcan to graduate from Star Fleet Academy, but again, I don't exactly recall. We know that by the time of The Immunity Syndrome that an Star Fleet ship (USS Intrepid) was manned entirely by Vulcans. And I can't seem to find any reliable reference to it with Google, either. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Update. I found this link, which asks but does not answer the question, either. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't T'Pol the first vulcan in Starfleet as of season 4 of Enterprise? She's no longer sub-commander but an actual comissioned starfleet officer.129.139.1.68 (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. T'Pol was the first Vulcan in Starfleet. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 01:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Either way, it doesn't seem like that relevant a factoid in a broad-level overview of the character anyhow... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In the premier of the series, there is no mention either way of Spock being the first half-Vulcan to serve in Starfleet. What is clear is that Sarek, who is Ambassador to Earth, is filled with anger and contempt at Spock's decision to do so. Djathinkimacowboy 07:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Family Info

Could someone edit the info box on the right to include his family info? The main text does have info on his dad and mom, but the box would allow easier access and viewing. Also, this article doesn't mention Saavik at all, while her page claims that she is the wife of Spock referencing Star Trek VI. Is that made up or is it canon? If it's canon, shouldn't that info be on Spock's page? 208.54.32.254 (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

ancient Jewish priestly class

The reference to an 'ancient Jewish priestly class' should be changed to note that the Cohanim (descendents of Aaron, the brother of Moses)still exist in an unbroken line to this day and still make the sign when delivering the priestly blessing during synagogue services. The W symbol is a Hebrew shin pronounced "sh" for shalom (peace). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.14.66 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance in addendum to lead photo info

There are four other actors who have portrayed Spock - but I am unable to discover the necessary text to add the names to the list beneath Spock's photo. Assistance please? Djathinkimacowboy 07:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is done. Thank you anyway. Djathinkimacowboy 07:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy -- this is a very old discussion and it has always ended in only the main actors and mainstream portrayals. I would recommend that before you add these changes back to the article, you change the consensus which is that they are not included. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add those people. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please take a gander here and here for some prior discussion about actors in the infobox. The latter also links to Wikiproject discussion on the subject, although those Wikiproject-level discussions are a) archived, and I didn't feel like looking for them :-/ and b) framed in terms of whether to include satirical and non-studio portrayals, which I don't think is the issue here. As for my own input: I think it is appropriate only to include the portrayals that are actually subject to meaningful coverage in the real world and, therefore, meaningful coverage in the article. Including the various child actors from TSFS and ST11, stuntmen, body doubles, etc. just becomes a muck of trivia. At worst, simply providing an anchored link to the Portrayals section (which I've done at Boba Fett) to avoid listing a whole bunch of names might be appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Since having been nearly skinned alive for accidentally removing the italicised movie title, I'm well aware that you would not want actual actors who have played Spock in that box. They are not trivial, people, they are actors who played Spock. Djathinkimacowboy 15:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you misinterpreted what I thought was an innocuous talk-page comment as being skinned alive; that wasn't the tone I was going for. Regardless, it's clear you disagree with what's been expected/supported at this article in the past (2.5+ years ago) -- please feel free to articulate your reasoning. You can also ask for an outside perspective by following WP:3O, and it might be appropriate to bring this question [back] to the overarching Wikiproject talk pages. --EEMIV (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reason articulated, if you'd care to read my last post. I will not argue with you. Djathinkimacowboy 15:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Spock and Spock Prime

Is is ever mentioned in any of the Star Trek media how, in the movies Star Trek (2009 film) and Star Trek: Into Darkness, the younger now alternate universe Spock is able to communicate with the older Spock Prime from our universe, since they are in alternate universes? What method of communication is used to communicate between alternate universes? Keraunos (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

They aren't in two different universes. In Star Trek (film) Spock prime went from one universe to the other universe and is still in the alternate universe in Star Trek Into Darkness. GB fan 23:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

His name

Is Spock his fore- or surname? Aboard the Enterprise he is addressed either as Mr. or Commander Spock. And on one occasion he states that his first name can hardly be pronounced by humans. Why is his fathers name not also Spock but Sarek? In case there is a canon explanation it should be included in the article.80.141.190.8 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Even on the Star Trek website, it only lists Spock and "lineal Vulcan name unpronounceable." Novfanaion (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A fuller name was given as S'chn T'gai Spock in the novel Ishmael by Barbara Hambly and many have subsequently accepted this. However, this name has not been used in any of the canon productions (as far as I am aware), thus this fuller name is not currently official. This can be included in the article, however, I would not include it in the lede, nor the infobox because of its unofficial status (and only included within the article with the clear statement that this is a — currently — unofficial name, accepted by some, and only given by the above mentioned book). Although the writers of the recent 2009 movie wanted to include information previously only found in the novels (basically, try to canonize some of the information in these books), Spock's name wasn't one of the things brought into the movie.

Note, also, that as far as pronunciation of the above name, we don't have any official orthography or transliteration standards to go by (if Okrand has created one, which is quite possible, he hasn't released it as far as my knowledge goes). For example, the "ch" may be a unit (perhaps a tš sound, maybe a ḥ sound, an aspirated k, or something completely different), or may be separate sounds (Okrand made varying use of the letter h when he designed Klingon, so who knows how he might have designed Vulcan). So, even if the above was accepted, nobody would really know how to begin pronouncing it. — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The article should emphasize the fact that Spock was commonly addressed as "Mister" because he's the ship's executive officer (as in Mr. Roberts). WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly the same could be said about Mister Saavik in Star Trek II. — Loadmaster (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A further comment from the one I made a year ago. Even though the name 'Spock' appears at the end of the full name in the non-canon name I mentioned above, this would be his forename (given name would probably be more accurate, here). This is similar to some other cultures (notably the Japanese, which Vulcans were partly modeled on) where the family name comes before the given name (the opposite of how most Europeans structure the full name). — al-Shimoni (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reaction to animals

The article states that "Spock offers the captain an emotionally detached, logical perspective," yet he reacts to cats ("Assignment: Earth") and tribbles ("The Trouble With Tribbles") in a manner that seems to involve some level of emotion. Should this fact be mentioned? — Loadmaster (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is important to remember that Spock is half human, so he has some human emotions. Also, the suppression of their emotions was adopted by Vulcans from the teachings of the philosopher Surak who counseled Vulcans to suppress their emotions because after they discovered atomic energy they had been fighting each other so savagely with neutron bombs. Surak gave the Vulcans meditation techniques to help them calm their emotions. But Vulcans still have underlying emotions beneath the surface. Keraunos (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And, notably, the unmoderated emotions of Vulcans are said to be stronger than those felt by humans. I guess we should probably reference that in the article. — al-Shimoni (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Spock/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

3 images, 72 citations. Needs secondary sources. JJ98 (Talk) 00:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 15:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Is Spock a fictional astronomer, physisist and chemist?

I think Mr. Spock displays a wide knowledge of scientific skills deserving he be listed under several categories. I believe he also had to direct Dr. Mccoy through his surgery, which demonstrates he has a medical knowledge as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary overcategorization. WP doesn't list every single quality or aspect of a subject by category, just the significant ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Portrayed by Nimoy until 27th February 2015?

I think this is kind of needless. He hadn't been in any Star Trek media since well before Quinto took over. KarstenO (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You might be right that it is needless, but you are wrong about not being in any Star Trek media since well before Quinto took over. He was in a movie with Quinto and they both portrayed Spock. -- GB fan 19:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the article should list him as portrayed by Nimoy until 2013, as that was his last appearance as the character. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Spock" emoji

Let's see if this works: U+1F596 RAISED HAND WITH PART BETWEEN MIDDLE AND RING FINGERS: 🖖 -- Impsswoon (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Spock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130809181104/http://www.postgazette.com/pg/07205/803985-100.stm to http://www.postgazette.com/pg/07205/803985-100.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111120055134/http://www.startreknewvoyages.com:80/faq.html to http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/faq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Spock in 2016 film

Spock's appearance in the 2016 film, in which a reference to the death of an older "Ambassador Spock" was referred to. Unfortunately, this situation was not explained to the viewing audience in the film. Can it be explained in this article why there are two different Spocks? 173.88.243.210 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Structure and content of this article

I think we need to discuss what the future development of this article is going to be. As I see it, this has the potential to be one of the longest fictional character biographies out there - and so we need to adopt a WP:Splitting approach - i.e. using this article as an index with summary sections which split off into secondary articles when those sections become too big. For context, I've created an expanded and stand alone version of the Development at User:Miyagawa/sandbox2 which is roughly equivalent in size to the existing Spock article. Since we're meant to keep articles below 100kb (and really below 80kb), adding the entire contents of that sandbox into this article would immediately overwhelm it. Although, I have a feeling that simply ensuring that everything in the main Spock article is properly cited would probably result in adding another 10 to 15kb alone.

So I propose that a series of second secondary articles should be created to expand upon each individual section, then with summaries of those articles placed here. As I see it - Development and Cultural impact are both ripe for expanding out of the main article. I think Appearances should be completly contained within the main Spock article, and I'm on the fence about Reception. I think that a fully expanded Appearances section would be at least 50% to 75% longer than it is now, plus citations. I want to emphasise that even with the splitting off into secondary articles, we're still looking at the main Spock article being in the 80kb range, and an increase to the number of characters. There is a lot that can be said about the character.

For full disclosure, I attempted to jump start this process earlier in the week. I created Development of Spock (the same article presently at my sandbox above), and it was speedily deleted on the basis that it was a copy of the main Spock article. There has been a discussion about what to do with it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 8, and the concensus seems to be to return it to userspace while we discuss here what to do about the main Spock article and any potential sub-articles.

I would like to propose that I re-draft the existing Development section based on a summary of the article at my Sandbox, and incorporate any elements which are in the existing version into the sandbox edition. Note that some of the elements in the existing Spock article are incorrect (i.e. Nichelle Nichols did not audition for the role of Spock, she auditioned using Spock's part in a script as Uhura's lines had not been written at that point, and afterwards asked if Spock's part was still avaliable). Once complete, I would then like to return the draft to mainspace with it split off from the main Spock article. Then we can see if we can revise the appearances section as it's very brief right now in coverage of The Original Series, really only highlighting a couple of episodes. Miyagawa (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh golly, I've always disliked the prospect of splitting articles. I, myself, am working on an article draft that's reached 88,710 bytes so far, and I have yet to tap two whole books dedicated to the subject (at 440 and 256 pages) nor two handfuls of online sources. There's nothing I like better than a long, comprehensive article. However, after reading Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Article size, I concede that it can be beneficial.

As for this article, I concur that if it included the content currently at development of Spock, it would be oversize. The way I would do it: (a) develop the subarticle in userspace, (b) once the subarticle is ready to take live, devolve the corresponding section in the main article to a summary of what's in userspace, then (c) move (or copy?) your userspace draft to the mainspace (e.g. cultural impact of Spock). As for what should be spun out, I trust you have a good idea of the inevitable sizes of these subarticles in your head based on the sources you have at your disposal; if you feel those sections would exceed 50–60 kB, then I encourage you to go ahead and break them out into your userspace.

Regarding your proposal, I think it's not only excellent, but well designed to avoid any strife, drama, or toe-stepping-upon. My own 3¢: I would add {{subarticle}} and/or {{summary in}} to the development article's talk page (IAW WP:SUBARTICLE), and I would include a "Background" section for readers who wind up there without reading this article first.

Any thoughts? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The deletion appeal ended up having the Development article returned to mainspace, so I rushed and put links back in. I've just gone and moved the last couple of bits from the Spock article's Development section into the Development article and then went back and summarised the Development article back at the main Spock article. The plan is to overhaul the appearances section on the main Spock article next, because in summarising the Development part, I've actually reduced it by about 9kb, but the appearances update should increase it back up again. I've also just realised that I need to move the reaction to Spock's death part from an older version of the article back in and place within reception. I'll go do that now. Miyagawa (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not particularly one for splitting articles, and I'm a bit torn on the userspace content; on one hand there's good detail that should go in, on the other I feel like some of it devolves into pretty minute stuff (like the method acting bit for TMP) and that it'd be better to cut those things and keep them in the main article than spin it out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Portrayed by

"Portrayed by Leonard Nimoy (1966–91; 2009–16 (photograph))" Considering that Nimoy died in 2015, he could not have portrayed Spock in 2016. A photograph is a prop, not a portrayal. --Khajidha (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• I concur. His final on screen role was in into Darkness. Otherwise, James Doohan and Deforest Kelley also appeared in Beyond. Miyagawa (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Would you believe that someone had added that to the Scott and McCoy articles as well? And James T. Kirk. And DeForrest Kelley's filmography section. And William Shatner's filmography page. I'm still tracking down all the places this idiocy has spread to. I mean, if that picture counts then every appearance of a Marilyn Monroe poster in a movie counts for her. That is just ridiculous. --Khajidha (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• And Sulu. And Chekov. And Uhura. And Nichelle Nichols' filmography section. I think I've gotten them all.--Khajidha (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• And Nimoy's filmography section....--Khajidha (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Spock's full name

Spock's full name S'chn T'gai Spock was revealed in the novel Ishmael. I don't know the page number because I found it on a Google Books preview that doesn't show page numbers. Does the citation have to be a page number or can it be a chapter number?

Someone has suggested that the full name shouldn't go in the article because it's not canon. This is incorrect because there is no Wikipedia policy disallowing the use of tie-in novels. The novel Ishmael was licensed, which means that someone from Paramount had to approve everything that was in the novel, which makes it a reliable source. --NetSpiker (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

After looking through Wikipedia's refernce policies, I found that chapter numbers are an acceptable alternative to page numbers. If there is still something wrong with my citations or some other part of my edits, please correct them instead of reverting them. If you revert them, I won't be able to learn anyhing. --NetSpiker (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem here is you're requiring a policy (or do you mean guideline?) as justification for reverting your additions. First of all, there doesn't need to be a "rule" - clear consensus (which there is here) is good enough. And anyway, there are guidelines, for instance at WP:WikiProject Star Trek: Under the section "Non-canon", it states "they are not official, and if included should always be clearly attributed to their source, and not presented as 'true' in the fictional universe." When you say "Spock's full name [...] was revealed in the novel Ishmael", it sounds like you're treating that as "true" for the entire fictional universe, which it's not. Putting it in the lead especially gives it the appearance of being "true" for the entire universe to the reader as well, and that's extremely misleading. If Spock's name as written in the novel needs to be included, it should be presented in a way that clearly indicates it's not universally true. And then, if it's just in one novel, is it really necessary to include it at all? I would probably say no. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a common misconception. People think that when something is non-canon, that means it is not true in the fictional universe. Actually, it just means that the writers who make future Star Trek stories are not required to be consistent with it, but they can choose to do so anyway, and they often do. The names Hikaru Sulu, Nyota Uhura, George Kirk and Winona Kirk first appeared in novels and only later appeared in movies. The fact that the S'chn T'gai family name has not yet been mentioned in a movie is no reason to treat it differently. Every Star Trek novel ever published needed to be approved by Paramount, so they are just as valid as the TV series and movies.

I never said the S'chn T'gai name only appeared in one novel. Ishmael is just the first novel it appeared in. It also appeared in the novels Beneath the Raptor's Wing, To Brave The Storm, Uncertain Logic and The Tears of Eridanus, so it's a well-established name. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

And also, there is no consensus, since different editors gave different reasons for reverting my edits. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying that the name appeared more than once (I don't read the novels). As for your specific arguments: If something from a non-canon source is accepted as generally true (or has become so), that's fine, but it will need a good cite (from a canon source) to back it up. The fact that in previous cases, names introduced in novels later appeared in films doesn't prove anything - for a particular case, it was non-canon before it appeared in a film, and canon afterward. It doesn't mean everything included in novels (even multiple novels) is "true". The whole idea of the source being considered non-canon means precisely that it isn't universally true. That's a much, much larger debate that we're not going to solve here. Most importantly, as for there being no "consensus" because the reasons are different, the consensus here is clearly against inclusion, and the reasons one editor or another may cite don't have to be exactly the same. --Fru1tbat (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion about non-canon Star Trek names over at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Star Trek, which I should've done from the start. I suggest we stop talking here, so we don't have essentially the same discussion running in two different places. --NetSpiker (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I have no objection to a non-canon source being cited in an article. I just don't think it belongs in the lead. It should be stated later down in the article. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150906102215/http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cgsjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=eswFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5061%2C5024378 to http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cgsjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=eswFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5061%2C5024378

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference 94 no longer exists. I don't want to hunt it down, I just wanted to mention it. Thedoctor98 (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100204181656/http://www.ugo.com/tv/best-tv-characters-of-all-time-spock to http://www.ugo.com/tv/best-tv-characters-of-all-time-spock

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

music instrument

In French article, Spock plays "luth vulcain". Is it possible to mention it in English article? ("Vulcan lute" ? I found no gentilic nor demonym for Vulcan inhabitants) Magnon86 (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)magnon86

The instrument is called the "Vulcan lyre" in English sources. The gentilic and demonym is Vulcan. The planet is Vulcan, the people are Vulcans, the language is Vulcan, the cities are Vulcan cities, the government is the Vulcan government, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as adding it to the article, I don't see it as necessary. That sort of detail is much better suited to Memory Alpha (and Memory Beta). --Khajidha (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

First mention of Spock in NG

I have removed the supposition that Picard mentions Spock in the show "Sarek". Picard talks about meeting Sarek at his son's wedding and the edits are trying to say that the son is Spock even though it doesn't say that. The reasoning on the first attempt was that the only other son ever mentioned was Sybock, who died years earlier. None of that means he didn't have another son. We would need a reliable source that says Picard is talking about Spock. ~ GB fan 10:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If someone thinks it is important for the article to state that Spock was first mentioned in the show "Sarek" by Picard/Sarek then might be able to work it in. Any mention of the marriage would need a reliable source that the son is Spock. ~ GB fan 11:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The info has been restored again. It is now only that he is mentioned in the episode. Is this really important enough for this article to say he is mentioned in the episode? ~ GB fan 12:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is somewhat noteworthy, because it signals a turning point in the production of TNG: originally they wanted to theoretically avoid TOS stuff, but by this point Roddenberry was getting older and TNG was getting on its own footing. (See the missionlog podcast episode). The episode is about Sarek, but the point of Sarek is Spock. I get the feeling they were testing the waters for the later Reunification episode. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding whether this was the 'first' time or not, given what missionlog said, it seems somewhat likely that it may have been the first time. At this point, I don't have a secondary source that specifically says that. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I do have a secondary source that states that, and also specifies the importance placed on it because up until then they really weren't allowed to talk about TOS. The citations are included in the production section of Sarek (Star Trek: The Next Generation) and are from both Larry Nemecek's Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion and Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens' Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Continuing Mission. Miyagawa (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If there are no objections, please add that! :) Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've replaced the existing sources with secondary sources, and added a quote from Michael Piller about this very inclusion. Miyagawa (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

ancestry

Was Spock's human half ever mentioned before Amanda appeared in Journey to Babel? —Tamfang (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I know that in The Naked Time, he cries for his human mother, doesn't he? Not sure when the first reference was, but I am pretty sure it was in the "writer's bible" as well. StarHOG (Talk) 23:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Actors list

Voice actor Frank Welker is credited with providing Spock's screams for STIII. Is this worthy of inclusion in the infobox? ATS (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Away Team link

The article had a broken link for "away team" under the heading "The Cage" and the first season. The only Wikipedia link I could find was to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Away_Team I added this as shown below, but as it's to a game I don't know if the link is appropriate or if it should be removed.

"Spock was one of the members of the away team who joined Captain Christopher Pike (Jeffrey Hunter) on a mission to Talos IV in order to investigate a distress call." Alden Loveshade (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably best to just de-link it. There's a dab page and a listing for both the game and the general Trek concept, but the latter just goes to the franchise. --EEMIV (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that! Alden Loveshade (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)