Talk:Spock: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:31, 16 August 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spock article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Star Trek B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction B‑class Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television B‑class Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American B‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Animation: American B‑class Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Fictional characters B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Spock was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon. Click the image to the right for full size version.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

"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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Revision as of 03:18, 13 August 2016 edit Lowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs) Bots, Template editors 2,168,404 edits m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Spock/Archive 1) (bot ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:31, 16 August 2016 edit undo Fourthords (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 43,733 edits →‎Structure and content of this article: + reply; Next edit →
Line 66:		Line 66:

	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. [[User:Miyagawa\|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa\|talk]]) 10:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)		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. [[User:Miyagawa\|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk: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.<p>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.<p>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 {{tl\|subarticle}} and/or {{tl\|summary in}} to [[Talk:Development of Spock\|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.<p>Any thoughts? — '''[[user:fourthords\|<span style="color:#CC0000">fourthords</span>]] \| [[user talk:fourthords\|=Λ=]] \|''' 17:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)