Jump to content

Talk:Spock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nightandday (talk | contribs) at 09:23, 19 June 2009 (→‎Other portrayals in Paramount's Star Trek releases). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spock&oldid=297328848"