Jake Fuersturm (talk | contribs) |
Jake Fuersturm (talk | contribs) →Spock Principle Edit War: That's pretty disingenuous of you .... |
||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
:I disagree. It is trivial and unnecessary. It in no way improves the article and should be left out. [[User:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533"><B>Erikeltic</B>]]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533">Talk]]</span>)</span></sup> 23:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC) |
:I disagree. It is trivial and unnecessary. It in no way improves the article and should be left out. [[User:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533"><B>Erikeltic</B>]]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533">Talk]]</span>)</span></sup> 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. [[User:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533"><B>Erikeltic</B>]]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533">Talk]]</span>)</span></sup> 23:42, 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. [[User:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533"><B>Erikeltic</B>]]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533">Talk]]</span>)</span></sup> 23:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::That's pretty disingenuous of you, when I'm the one who started the "D" in BRD. -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk:Jake Fuersturm|talk]]) 23:43, 28 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. -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533"><B>Erikeltic</B>]]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533">Talk]]</span>)</span></sup> 23:46, 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. [[User:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533"><B>Erikeltic</B>]]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533">Talk]]</span>)</span></sup> 23:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:19, 29 May 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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)
- 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.
[1] [2] 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:
- 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?
- 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).
- 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?
- 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.
- 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
- I'm happy to kill the facial hair section, but it was already there before I arrived.
- 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
[3], [4], [5] 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)
- 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)