FANDOM


PNA-incompleteEdit

Off the top of my head, his interests section could be expanded, or at least cited (doesnt like Italian?). Also, there is no info from Star Trek V, the references about him from "Face of the Enemy" or "Trials and Tribble-ations", and the paragraph from Unification is weak, at best. --Alan del Beccio 10:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

ST2 MythEdit

There is this huge myth in Star Trek, that in the second Movie, the Enterprise and her crew were assigned to Starfleet Academy, but there really is no truth to it. It is clear to me, that in that movie they were training a new crew for the Enterprise to be under command of Captain Spock. It is obvious if you just take time to listen to McCoy, "Admiral, wouldn't it be easier to just put an experienced crew back on the ship." If they were there to train cadets why would McCoy say something stupid like that? --TOSrules 08:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always wondered about that line, actually. I think I agree, but only that the Enterprise herself was not assigned to the Academy. I think it's pretty obvious that at least Kirk was now working as an instructor at the Academy, as per his living in San Francisco and McCoy's line that he should get his command back. Whether Scotty, Sulu and Uhura were also working at the Academy or would continue serving on the Enterprise under Spock, I couldn't say. What does everyone else think about this? --From Andoria with Love 22:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Captain Spock indicated that he was "content to command the Enterprise," but only as "a teacher on a training mission...." When faced with the possibility of going on active service, he informed Admiral Kirk that it was "clear that the senior officer on board must assume command." Sulu's statement about being glad of any chance to be aboard the Enterprise, coupled with McCoy's line referenced above, suggests that the other officers were simply "along for the ride," as it were. Given the age of the ship, Spock's long-standing disavowal of a line command (see "The Galileo Seven", "The Enterprise Incident" and "The Tholian Web"), and the advent of the Excelsior-class starships, it seems that the on-screen evidence supports the notion that Enterprise was a training ship and the crew was being prepared for future assignments.--GNDN 07:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Academy Reference?Edit

While I'm working on fleshing out this article, can anyone recall a specific mention of Spock attending/graduating Starfleet Academy? Presumably, he did, but I'm not aware of a canon reference. His eighteen-year silence with Sarek places his final decision to join Starfleet in 2249, and I guess "The Cage" is generally accepted to take place in 2254, establishing the Academy window. --Aurelius Kirk 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Spock said he had John Gill as an Academy instructor in TOS: "Patterns of Force". I think that's as close to an actual mention of his attending the Academy as you're going to get. But you can rest assured that he did attend the Academy, and since he joined Starfleet in 2249, then placing his Academy years from 2249 through 2253 is canon. --From Andoria with Love 16:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Shran, I'll work that into my next revision. --Aurelius Kirk 16:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I know of two key references:
  • TOS: "Journey to Babel", by splicing to seemingly related statements together we get: Spock and Sarek have not spoke as father and son for 18 years; because Spock chose to devote his knowledge to Starfleet instead of the Vulcan Science Academy.
  • TOS: "The Enterprise Incident", the more obvious one: Spock had been a Starfleet officer for 18 years.
Both episodes took place ca. 2268, meaning he started ca. 2250-- I'm not sure which canon source state 2249 to 2253. Add to that the fact that Spock served with Pike for "11 years, 4 months, 5 days" (with "The Cage" falling within this period "13 years ago" (per "The Menagerie"). Additional timeline references include a reference in "This Side of Paradise" that states that Spock met Leila on Earth, "6 years ago," and in "Journey to Babel", stated that he hasn't visited his parents in "4 years." --Alan del Beccio 03:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
All it says is that the date is when Spock decided to join Starfleet. "Enterprise Incident" (A Year later?) Spock says he has been in Starfleet for 18 years, since it is so close to the 18 year figure from the previous season I'd say that is starting from the academy and not graduation 18 years ago. That would suggest that there was a year of table talk at Sarek's house before joining Starfleet. Well that is one of many ways to explain the year.--TOSrules 04:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you are coming from, as I essentially said that, or at least that is what I meant. The 18 year figure would be the starting point of his 18 years in Starfleet, if he was counting the academy, which I don't see a problem with. --Alan del Beccio 04:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
What I am saying is that the JTB 18 years is only a mark of when Spock decided to join, not when he did join. --TOSrules 01:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of info on what he did after life on RomulusEdit

How come there's no mention of what he did after Picard left him on Romulus? I'm sure there was a novel dedicated to the final years of his life. 141.157.212.55 01:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That is why there is an "apocrypha" section. Such information cannot be included in the main body of the article as it is not canon. --From Andoria with Love 01:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well he tried to stop their planet from being destroyed. 64.12.117.72 17:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lieutenant Commander SpockEdit

Despite the fact that Captain Kirk introduces his first officer as "Lieutenant Commander Spock" as late as the nineteenth episode filmed ("Tomorrow is Yesterday"), there are several references to "Commander" Spock throughout this work in articles that deal with earlier episodes. It would be one thing if Commander wasn't linked to the page discussing rank, but the fact remains that he is a Lieutenant Commander until sometime in 2267, no matter how many stripes he has on his sleeves. --GNDN 07:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so! First of all, there is only one verbal statement by Krik versus nineteen episodes with Spock wearing two solid stripes. Secondly, I think a single verbal lapse (intentional for some shrewd reason?) by Kirk is much more probable than a semi-military, well-disciplined organization like Starfleet letting one of its officers walk around with the wrong rank insignia for such an extended period of time. And even with wrong insignia for a higher rank! Thirdly, given the personality of Spock, it is not believable that Spock wouldn't have noticed the wrong stripes on his sleeves, and even more unbelievable that he had displayed wrong insignia intentionally. The only option seems to be to go for a uniform/insignia/rank inconsistency here.--Skon 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, canonically, he was a lieutenant commander until 2267. Dialogue tends to take prescedence over anything else. Besides, the full commander's braids could be explained by any number of reasons. Maybe he was up for promotion to commander but it hadn't yet become official until later on? Or maybe his status as first officer somehow allowed him to wear commander's braids? It could be one of those, or it could be another reason. Basically, all we can do is speculate (not in the article, of course) and accept that Spock was a lieutenant commander earlier in the series and was promoted later on. --From Andoria with Love 20:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Spoken word over visual evidence: Ok, but there may be exceptions to this rule if visual evidence is more convincing. But I agree that it's open whether we have such a case here. The conjecture that two solid braids have something to do with the first officer role has some evidence from TMP going for it. When Admiral Kirk assumed command of the Enterprise, he would suddenly wear captain's regalia, while Captain Decker was temporarily reduced to Commander, wearing two stripes accordingly. This seems quite weird compared with what we have seen later, for example in TWOK when Admiral Kirk again assumed command: Kirk stayed an admiral and Captain Spock was not reduced in rank. So maybe it was like this: Prior to TWOK, every master of a Starfleet vessel had to be ranked a captain and every first officer had to be ranked a commander. If that's not the actual rank at the time, you get the rank provisionally for as long as you're in the skipper or XO position. (But why were Constellation an Lexington commanded by commodores in TOS?) --Skon 21:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently in the US Navy, which I almost joined as an officer, but didn't serve in, it is possible to have two officers on a large ship, like an aircraft carrier, both carry the service rank of captain. There was an example in Star Trek III where Commander Scott became a "captain of engineering" on another starship. So the Star Trek universe is a little inconsistent here. Both traditions apparently exist in parallel depending on the circumstances.--Sheliakcorp talk 15:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is genuinely assumed that Spock was a lieutenant commander during the first series. The article has a very schizophrenic moment where it claims Spock was promoted to commander between "Court Martial" (where he's referred to as lieutenant commander) and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" (where he's referred to as lieutenant commander) and Kirk somehow forgot but doesn't offer any evidence. He isn't referred to as a full commander until "Amok Time" if I remember correctly. – Skteosk 08:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
How about its because Gene R. is a moron cuz he wrote it. He has no idea what rank is! Stop speculating. He didnt care or know about ranks and navel rules. He paid no attention to it and appartley thought by assuming command you are demoted. What an idiot! The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.121.27 (talk).
Be careful about who you call an idiot as we have a policy against personal attacks. — Morder (talk) 01:16, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Plasma Conduits?Edit

I'm not sure there's any specific cannon reference to Spock repairing the "plasma conduits" in II. --Beyerku 20:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

First Spock picEdit

Since this is an article about a leading character in Star Trek, it deserves to have a clearer, stronger pic leading off this piece on the sidebar. Any takers on this? --Sheliakcorp talk 15:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy is to have a pic from the character's latest appearance, and Unification is Spock's. If you can find a better one from those two episodes, have at it. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
After discussion here I'm going to be bold and swap some of the pictures around. 172.202.99.244 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (Madred)

email link as source Edit

In the Diplomatic Career section of the article, there is a "mailto:" link. So... that is strange. --Bp 10:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... removed & added {{incite}}. -- Cid Highwind 11:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cage rank Edit

Does anyone know if Spock's rank is established in The Cage? The picture of him from that episode is captioned "Ensign Spock", but in the article about "The Cage", the same picture is captioned "Lt. Spock". 172.202.99.244 01:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (Madred)

ProtectionEdit

Temporarily protected from anon editing due to a spate of vandalism. -- Sulfur 13:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Spock's year of birth Edit

According to Star Trek Chronology, Spock was born in 2230, but that is only conjecture that is not based on anything canon. How was 2232 arrived at? – Enterprise1981 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the 2232 page, this was established in TAS: "Yesteryear". - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 19:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Revisiting this: What information from the episode is used to establish this? -- Captain MKB 03:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This is only a guess, but judging by the citations, one way to find the 2232 date is from "Yesteryear", which states that Spock was age seven during the events of that episode. Other lines in that episode also establish a divergence point (beginning when Spock died) at being thirty years ago, establishing an approximate timeframe between those events and "current" events (ie "in the past thirty years", "twenty to thirty Vulcan years past", "thirty years past"). Now granted, "Vulcan years" was thrown in there once, but that is an ambiguity that we cannot account for by the mystical ways of canon, as the length of a Vulcan year was not established, so MA has tended to take dates at face value, meaning 1 year = 1 year, no matter where you are (unless otherwise noted). By that, we can determine that age 7 + 30 years ago = 37 years from birth to "current", where 2269 - 37 = 2232.
To contrast, the Chronology's method of determination does not use the TAS evidence for reference, but rather bases the date of 2230 as being speculation, per the suggestion that Spock was the same age as Nimoy, as per a line cut from "Journey to Babel" that would have established a 2229 wedding date for Amanda and Sarek, then working under the assumption that Spock was born the following year.
The only other evidence I can think of, and its probably more speculative than factual, as I don't believe the mechanics of pon farr were fully established to support this, but based on evidence in "Amok Time", if Spock underwent pon farr every seven years, and working backwards from the "current" year of his pon farr, based on the episode date, then the years that fall within his cycle include: 2267 (age 35), 2260 (age 28), 2253 (age 21), 2246 (age 14), 2239 (age 7), & 2232 (birth). Anyway, that's all I can come up with off the top of my head. --Alan 05:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New Cast Edit

Seen as Quinto is already being credited as playing Spock, can we assume that that when and if the characters of the Original Series are recast for the new movies we put them up here as so. even though the movie hasn't been filmed--Marcos dax 01:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That will be the case. As can be seen on the Spock page already. There is mention on Quinto. No pictures of him as Spock... for obvious reasons :) -- Sulfur 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
But only those who have actually been cast, not just approached or rumored. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Zachary Quinto has been cast to portray a younger Spock in the 2008 Star Trek film with Leonard Nimoy reprising his role as an older Spock.
This information should not be added until the film is released. We applied this rule during the original run of ENT and have basically continued with TOS remastered info. Quinto and others should not be added until there is actually something to show for the credit. I've removed these spoilers pending the release of the film in a good 16 months... --Alan del Beccio 03:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, this is a motion picture. People will come here, to see who is played by whom. Shall we wait till we get the first trailer or the first poster (featuring the names) to include the info? In Quinto's case, all is set an he will be the new Spock. Why should we wait till the release of the movie. If something should go wrong, and the role is recast, we can always change the actor's name. And if this about staying spoiler-free... I don't know. What is more important: Being up-to-date or not spoiling casting choices in the next movie? What do the others think? --Jörg 09:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about others, but I don't consider casting info as a spoiler. I have *never* said (or thought) "no, no, don't tell me who's in the movie... I want to be surprised when I see it!" Just the opposite, in fact... I *want* to know who's in the film before I see it. My two cents... -- Renegade54 13:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If we are concerned about being up to date, then we can include it on the Star Trek (film) page, if we are concerned about being spoiler free, then we can include it on the Star Trek (film) page. I guess my biggest concern is treating this like it is already done, rather than merely in development. But as I said, the film is over 16 months out, it doesn't even have a title yet, it's not like anyone is going to be seeing it tomorrow, or even in a year from today for the concern to exist regarding who is going to be in it. I just think we should find a better approach for the inclusion of new tidbits than this "Hyena finding a scrap of meat to eat" approach that some, mostly new, and anonymous users are taking. --Alan del Beccio 16:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That last sentence I agree with totally. :) -- Renegade54 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Alan, this should be kept on Star Trek, not other character pages. Fact is, Quinto hasn't yet portrayed Spock, and I can actually see putting it here as almost saying that he had done so. Keep it on the page about the future production. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
For the record, Alan, the new film does have an official title: Star Trek (nothing more, nothing less). --From Andoria with Love 04:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it alright if we delete this little exchange from two years ago?--Italianajt 19:21, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Spock epitaph Edit

I believe all the main characters need epitaphs to sum up their place in the Star Trek universe; and as for an epitaph often being on a tombstone for those passed on, Picard rightfully has one, as well. Therefore, going on the slightly arrogant assumption that others agree with me on this principle, here's asking what everyone thinks it should be. As it stands, I have even more difficulty summing up Spock than I do Kirk. --ChrisK 07:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most... Human." -- Cid Highwind 10:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

SurnameEdit

Does anyone know what are surnames of Spock and Sarek ??? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.209.2 (talk).

I don't think Vulcans have surnamesIcecreamdif 22:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course they do, and it's canon. Hiya, Jim-boy. 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an answer, then? --OuroborosCobra talk 16:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
As noted below, Amanda's (and therefore Sarek and likely Spock) "Vulcan name" is only pronounceable "after a fashion" (according to TOS: "Journey to Babel"). It's never been given in canon, but non-canon sources have given it as either "S'chn T'gai" or "Xtmprsqzntwlfd."--Tim Thomason 16:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In "This Side of Paradise", Leila asked Spock if he had another name. He replied, "You wouldn't be able to pronounce it."69.11.25.97 20:30, January 9, 2010 (UTC)Hilary Ryan

Removed nit Edit

Removed the following as a nitpick. It also seems more relevant to the Sherlock Holmes page than Spock, just IMO.

In the movie Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Spock quotes the fictional character Sherlock Holmes in saying that "When all logical possibilities have been eliminated, whatever remains - howerver unlikely - must be the truth.". In doing so he attributes the quote to one of his own ancestors. It is unclear whether he meant to claim Sherlock Holmes as his ancestor (since he is half human), which could be excused since Spock is also a fictional character. However in TNG cannon, Sherlock Holmes is clearly mentioned several times as being a fictional character created by the famous author Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle.--31dot 14:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, Spock could have been refering to Conan Doyle. Hiya, Jim-boy. 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

katra "transfer"? Edit

If I remember right doesn't he "transfer his katra in to the other person before he goes in to repair what ever it is? If he really transferred it then how come he was still able to do the thing he nedded to? The only thing I can think of is that he put his katra into the other person then put a copy back into his body but that seems a little complicated to me. Perhaps he only put a copy in to the other person and he really did die.212.74.27.54 13:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe Spock transfered a copy into McCoy, logically speaking, and so really did die. Hiya, Jim-boy. 01:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Unpronounceable first name for certain? Edit

Is there any other canon evidence that Spock's first name is "unpronounceable to humans" other than his comment to Leila Kalomi in "This Side of Paradise" that she could not pronounce it? If not, it is quite a reach to make that conclusion. I cannot recall any other instance where a species would have such a physiological vocal difference from humans as to make this the case. Picard could even speak the language of an "insect-like" race to their satisfaction, so I find it unlikely that a race so humanoid could have such a difference in vocal abilities. Most likely, Spock (who was even in a state of chemical-induced euphoria at the time of his statement) believed that Leila, and probably most English-speaking humans, would have too much difficulty pronouncing it that they need not bother. Unless there is further evidence of this, the statement about the pronounceability of his first name should be edited. Mal7798 23:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What you cited, is by definition the canon reference. --Alan 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was, is there any other reference (other than merely citing this reference) that Spock's first name is not pronounceable to humans? Spock's statement in that episode can range in meaning from "Vulcans have a unique vocal physiology capable of sounds no other humanoid species could even come close to imitating" to "Leila, and and only Leila, is too dimwitted to be expected to be able to pronounce any language even slightly different from English". If humans cannot pronounce it, how about Klingons? Or Ferengi? A Borg? Even a Romulan? How about a Vulcan raised on Earth who speaks only English? That line from "This Side" alone is not quite enough to conclude that all humans are totally incapable of pronouncing the name. I recall no other evidence that Human and Vulcan physiology is dissimilar in this manner. Mal7798 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't he say the same thing to Kirk in one of the first 5 episodes? --TribbleFurSuit 04:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what other evidence we need. There is no need to infer anything else beyond what Spock said. Absent other evidence, we go by what was said(it's unpronouncible) You could be right that it could mean a wide variety of things, but any answer beyond what was said would be only speculation.--31dot 04:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If TribbleFurSuit is correct, then that is the specific evidence that is needed. Otherwise all Spock has said about his name is that Leila could not pronounce it, and it was possibly his own opinion (he never even gave her a chance to try ;) ). Most likely (in my opinion) Spock has established that native English speakers have difficulty with the sounds of his name. Given his general attitude, Spock is almost certain to consider his own language more sophisticated than English, and biased to think that humans would have more difficulty with it than they actually would. Thus I think "unpronouncable to Humans" should be changed to "his full name is unknown but believed to be generally formidable for Humans to pronounce" or something to that effect. Mal7798 09:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Spock's simple "You couldn't pronounce it" isn't the only reference to the unpronounceable Vulcan name. Their's also the conversation between Kirk and Amanda in "Journey to Babel" (I'm afraid you couldn't prounce the Vulcan name. -- Can you? -- After a fashion, and after many years of practice.). This all points to the name being exceptionally hard to pronounce (especially for those not specialized in linguistics), but not impossible.--Tim Thomason 03:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is something I never considered until now: If Spock's first name is unpronounceable to humans, wouldn't Spock himself, being half-human, have difficulty pronouncing it? And would it not be ILLOGICAL to give someone a name that he himself would have difficulty pronouncing? Mal7798 01:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Put it this way, how often do you use your name in conversation compared to the frequency of use by others? Capncanuck 22:20, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
The difficulty in pronunciation probably has more to do with what your native language is than with some physiological difference between Humans and Vulcans. Most native speakers of English have a very difficult time with African languages which contain "clicks", just because as children speakers of English learn that those sounds are not linguistic, so they get "filed" in a different part of the brain. I'd wager that a Human — or half-human — raised on Vulcan would have no problem pronouncing Vulcan names. —Josiah Rowe 02:53, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Kirk's captainsEdit

By the way, who are the six captains who served under Kirk? I can only think of Spock, Scott, Sulu and, implictly, McCoy (who we never saw as a captain but who probably was one on the way to admiral). Uhura's a captain in some of the novels but surely that comes under apocrypha. Don't know who the sixth one would be. Riley? – Skteosk 10:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Will Decker. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Relationships Section Omission Edit

It seems to me that if we are going to count Leila Kalomi as having a relationship with Spock, there should be added to the relationships section some mention of Zarabeth from TOS: "All Our Yesterdays". While both relationships were to a certain extent artificially motivated, they were equally passionate. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seibbuc (talk • contribs).

SpohkhEdit

What is it with this nonsense about his name actually being "Spohkh" -- It got copied to the other aticle, and seems ridiculous. Should we remove it? -- Captain MKB 00:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's been around for a while. As far as I could tell, it's a reference to the Vulcan language version being spoken during his kolinahr in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. I might be wrong, but I think it should be removed (Spock itself is probably a Vulcan word).--Tim Thomason 06:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternate reality referencesEdit

Since the alternate reality was triggered by Nero, Spock would not be "affected" before meeting alternate reality orphan Kirk or Nero; shouldn't we add youth details then? like bullied by other kids and his graduation? MoffRebus 10:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, his birth would've been unaffected (barring anti-time effects), and his childhood was most likely unaffected by the rift in time, but one could argue that, through the butterfly effect, the incursion of 'anything' coming through the black hole automatically changed history, so we can't definitively bring any info from the alternate universe over to the prime universe. Ctetc2007 12:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The picture with the yellow background (2258) should have the "alternate reality" removed from the caption, yes? And the file should be renamed. That picture was taken prior to Spock entering the alternate reality. MystRivenExile 03:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Done on the caption, I fixed the year as well. I've left a note on the file talk page for admins to take action on. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed speculation Edit

I've removed the following from the section about Spock serving under Pike:

During this incident, although it is never mentioned or implied, Spock most likely held the rank of either Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander. And possibly could have been the ships Second Officer.

It seems speculative to me; anyone disagree? Is there any actual evidence about Spock's rank or position in "The Cage"? —Josiah Rowe 18:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Spock was a Lieutenant in "The Cage" if memory serves. leandar 05:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Aging Edit

Perhaps it should be noted that, being a Vulcan/Human hybrid, Spock ages slower than humans but faster than Vulcans. He already appears somewhat seasoned in TNG:Unification, where he's 135, and he looks really old in Star Trek 2009, where he's 155 (portrayed by 78 year old Nimoy). By comparison, his 203 year father Sarek was portrayed by a 66 year old actor in TNG:Unification. Tuvok from Voyager is 112 year old as of the last season, and shows no signs of aging (portrayed by a 45 year old actor). The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.217.221 (talk).

Missing? Edit

I notice that Spock is listed on the main page as "Missing" and then living in the alternate reality. Wouldn't it be more sensible to put Spock as not just "Missing," but maybe either "Dead," with some kind of "as far as the prime universe knows" sort of caption or maybe even just simpler, "Missing, presumed dead?" leandar 05:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems likely that he would be listed as MIA instead of KIA. - Archduk3 02:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

RemovedEdit

I removed the bit about his name actually being spelled "Spohkh" because it seemed like rubbish, and no one had any idea why this was in the article re: my earlier inquiry.

I also removed ", as well as the only bridge officer (late in his Starfleet career) to give James T. Kirk orders (to negotiate with the Klingon Empire following the Praxis incident of 2293)" because it is untrue. Spock vouched for Kirk, but Fleet Admiral Bill clearly gave the order. -- Captain MKB 13:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

UncitedEdit

"Spock is also one of six starfleet officers under James T. Kirk to have attained the rank of Captain."

So we have Spock, Sulu and Scotty -- who else? (keeping in mind that McCoy could've gone from commander to admiral as far as we know) -- Captain MKB 13:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what sources you're willing to accept. There's nothing as far as I know in actual film anywhere that shows anyone else. However if you're willing to accept novels as a source, then Chekov and Uhura both as well became captains, Chekov commanding two starships and Uhura became head of Starfleet Intelligence, both eventually becoming admirals. As well as the captain of the Saratoga seen in Star Trek IV, in one or two books, she's named as having served under Kirk on Enterprise at an early point in her career. --leandar 18:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Memory Alpha accepts canon sources, and no canon source has referenced Chekov, or Uhura, or the Saratoga captain as having ever done any such thing. I'm amazed this has remained in the article for so long. -- Captain MKB 02:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Spock, Sulu, Scotty, Decker, Chekov, Uhura -- User:Ensignzixxieclux 12:15, 16 August 2009 (GMT)
Again, where in canon is it stated that either Chekov or Uhura become captains? -- sulfur 12:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, nowhere. No reference to Chekov is made after Generations and no reference to Uhura is made after Star Trek VI. leandar 15:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Uhura talks to Sulu as though they are equal in IV - both promoted? Chekov is wearing a captains uniform generations, at least in the novel -- User:Ensignzixxieclux 12:15, 16 August 2009 (GMT)
Uhura and Sulu had a lot of history as bridge compadres. So, talking like they were equals is not too far out in left field. Generations novel? Non-canon. -- sulfur 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to stick to onscreen canon-only sources, you're pretty screwed as far as trying to figure out what happens to Sulu, Uhura and Chekov. This is one thing I hate about Trek canon, that there's all this good information but it's non-canon and as such, inadmissible in some folks' eyes. Makes me wish they could make it more like Star Wars canon, and have various levels of canonicity, with the films and TV series being the highest level, of course. leandar 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
That's what Memory Beta is for. The big problem that Trek faces compared to Star Wars is that all of the Star Wars stuff has been carefully fit into a larger picture. And those few things that don't are considered "what if" stories. Trek has a veritable buttload of "what if" stories by that logic, since so many things contradict canon and so forth. -- sulfur 17:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I know. I'm just saying it'd be nice if it could be done. leandar 17:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed quotes Edit

I've removed the following quotes as memorable scenes, per MA:QUOTE:

"My friend is obviously Chinese. I see you've noticed the ears. They're ... actually quite easy to explain." "Perhaps the unfortunate accident I had as a child..." "The unfortunate accident he had as a child, he caught his head in a mechanical ... rice picker." Kirk and Spock

Kirk:"Spock!" (Spock, kissing Leila) "Yes, what did you want?" Kirk, confused: "Spock, is that you?" Spock: "Yes, Captain, what did you want?" Kirk: "Where are you?" Spock: "I don't believe I want to tell you that." Kirk: "Spock, I don't know what you think you're doing, but this is an order. Report back to me at the settlement in ten minutes. We're evacuating all colonists to Starbase 27." Spock: "No, I don't think so." Kirk: "You - don't - think - so - what??" Spock: "I don't think so Sir!"


" What would you say the odds are on our getting out of here?" "It is difficult to be precise, Captain. I should say approximately 7824.7 to one." "Difficult to be precise? 7824 to one?" "7824.7 to one."


"You're not going to admit that, for the first time in your life, you made a completely emotional decision based on desperation?" "No, sir." "Mr Spock, you're a stubborn man." "Yes, Sir." Kirk and Spock

"That's a pretty close approximation." "I endeavour to be accurate." "You do quite well." Kirk and Spock


"Spock, comments?" "Very bad poetry, Captain." " A more useful comment, Mr Spock?" "What we've just seen is not real." " That's useful." Kirk and Spock

"What do you think you were trying to do?" "I surmised you were unaware of that plant, so I -" "Stepped in front and took the thorns yourself." "I assure you, Captain, that I had no intention of doing that. It was merely my own clumsiness which prevented me from moving out of the way." "Well, next time just yell, I can step out of the way as quickly as the next man." "I shall do so." "Tryin' to get yourself killed. Do you know how much Starfleet has invested in you?" "One hundred twenty-two thousand -" " Never mind! ... but thanks." Kirk and Spock--31dot 23:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs more removed. Its out of control. I think that user just logged out, and kept adding as an IP. We may need to protect. --- Jaz 03:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
IP is now adding more, and re-adding when I revert. I have temporarily semi-protected. --- Jaz 03:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have given this page a one hour protection due to continual adding of quotes. It is getting out of hand, as Jaz said. I would first suggest the removal of the "Spock and Kirk" section as consisting of memorable scenes.--31dot 15:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the entire quotation section needs to be removed or replaced. None of the quotations really say anything about Spock, except for some of his dying words, and a few where he talks about the nature of logic. The rest just seem to be regular spock-talk. --- Jaz 02:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"You lied!" Edit

Does this deserve a section, since Spock seems to have something of a catchphrase where someone says "You lied" and he says "I exaggerated, implied, etc"? Or is this covered somewhere else?- JustPhil 02:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WNMHGB Division Color? Edit

Is there any information, canon or licensed that suggests why Spock wears a command colored uniform in WNMHGB?

He was Pike's Science Officer, but what was he under Kirk since Gary Mitchell was Kirk's first officer? Why put him in a command uniform if he was still the science officer? Did Kirk assign him different duties until he promoted him to first officer? Was there another science officer? Sulu perhaps?--Dogg 05:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding division colors in WNMHGB, please see Starfleet uniform (2250s-2260s) - they differ slightly from what was used later. Especially there's no red uniform color, so the meaning of colors might be different from that of the later series. -- Cid Highwind 08:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Spock "Prime" Edit

I have seen references to this title referring to the mainline reality Spock. Please tell me this is not canon. I hate that title. If I ever write a Star Trek summary I am going to call him "Original Spock". Whomever wants to can change it. I will not use that title; it makes him sound like a Transformer! – Crimsondawn Talk yuh talk 00:00, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Nimoy was credited as "Spock Prime" in the movie Icecreamdif 00:09, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Aw, man! :( – Crimsondawn Talk yuh talk 00:18, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

The "Prime" was for our benefit, and has nothing to do with the Star Trek universe. Spock Prime already redirects to this article, that should be sufficient.--31dot 00:19, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Spock's "Marriage" Edit

I removed the following: "Spock was married sometime between 2327 and 2333. Among those attending the ceremony were his father, Sarek, and a young Lieutenant Jean-Luc Picard. (TNG: "Sarek")"

It cannot be conclusively stated that Spock was married when his name was not mentioned by Picard. I agree it is a strong possibility. But to state it definitively like that is simply wrong, imo.

I changed the following: "Picard stated in the episode "Sarek" that, as a lieutenant, he had briefly met with Sarek at the wedding of the latter's son. While the name of Sarek's son was not specified, it seems to have been intended as a reference to Spock."

I changed it to: "Picard stated in the episode "Sarek" that, as a lieutenant, he had briefly met with Sarek at the wedding of the latter's son. While it very well could have been intended as a reference to Spock, there is no proof that it was."

I also changed the following: "Since Picard was a lieutenant at the wedding but a lieutenant commander when he was given command of the USS Stargazer in 2333, the wedding must have taken place prior to that year, but after 2327 when he graduated from Starfleet Academy."

I changed it to: "If it was indeed Spock's wedding, it would have occurred between 2327 and 2333. Since Picard graduated from Starfleet Academy in 2327 and was promoted to lieutenant commander when he was given command of the USS Stargazer in 2333, he was a lieutenant at some point during the intervening time span." The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.161.176 (talk).

I reworded the note based on the TNG Companion. The line was meant to imply Spock, but due to caution about TOS references, they intentionally left it ambiguous.– Cleanse 09:25, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Namesake Edit

What's the MA policy on information derived from deleted scenes? In the deleted scene with Spock's birth in the new film, Sarek suggests to Amanda that they name the baby Spock, after "one of Vulcan's society founders". Since Spock was born prior to the Narada's arrival and the destruction of the Kelvin, this would presumably apply to the original timeline as well; but since it's in a deleted scene, presumably its canonicity is debatable. Can this information be included in this article, perhaps formatted as background information like the bit about Spock's decision to attend Starfleet instead of the Vulcan Science Academy? And should there be another article for the "society founder" Spock? (Or is this "society founder" meant to be our Spock via time travel, in some story I'm not familiar with?) —Josiah Rowe 03:07, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

It can be a background note for this article (and the alternate timeline Spock article), but that's it. The scene was deleted, it was removed from being canon. We can't have an article on the society founder Spock for the same reason. At least, not in universe. I don't think it is notable enough to have a real world perspective version. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:12, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I see that someone's already added it for alt.Spock; I've added it here. If the wording isn't appropriate, feel free to fix it. —Josiah Rowe 03:32, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Events that overlap with the alternate reality Edit

As stated on the audio commentary, Spock's backstory was unaffected by Nero's incursion, and it was "imagined" that he first clashed with Kirk after he cheated on his test in both realities. Orci supported this notion in his famous quantum mechanics lecture on TrekMovie.com. ("But you are saying that maybe Scotty or Spock's back story would not be affected by that change?" "Right.") So would we able to intergrate information on Spock and maybe Kirk's page that Spock's reason for joining Starfleet was because of racial prejudice, and that he programmed the Kobayashi Maru and met Kirk when he cheated on the test? – Alientraveller 11:50, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

We could certainly note any comments by the writers on the issue in the Background section, but I don't know if I would go as far as to say it happened to the original Spock, as it wasn't said in canon.--31dot 11:53, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
Plus canon for the prime timeline clearly indicates that Spock was on the Enterprise in 2254. The only way I can think of to get around that might be that these events at the academy would have happened just before Spock's assignment to Enterprise and that tour of duty, including the events of "The Cage," was his first mission aboard. I know that's reaching and not something we could put on the page, but that's all I can think of for it to fit as "The Menagerie" was in 2267 and Kirk had been captain since 2265 and Spock said he served with Pike for just over 11 years. leandar 16:30, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Spock's confision over Kirk's status in the alternate realityEdit

In the 2009 Star Trek film, Spock seems surprised that Kirk is not captain of the Enterprise. I would be more able to accept this if Spock didn't know when he was, but it was clear during the mind meld that he knew exactly how far into the past he was. Given this, he would have known that Kirk wasn't the captain of the Enterprise in 2258. In 2258 of the prime reality, Pike was still captain of the Enterprise and Spock was already aboard as science officer ("The Cage" had already happened in 2254 in the prime reality). However, despite being raised with Vulcan disciplines, he still has his human side and Vulcans let their emotional restraint slip at times (Spock had, so had Tuvok, Sarek, T'Pol, Soval, and many others). Spock had been accustomed to Kirk being captain of the Enterprise, and even with the facts Kirk not being captain might still surprise him, especially in his distraught condition after witnessing the destruction of Vulcan. Vern4760 15:47, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

It's also possible that Spock didn't know for sure what year it was until he engaged in the mind meld. If you remember, he did not specify how far in the future he was from until he had already placed his hand on Kirk's face. While he had not started the transference of his own consciousness into Kirk's mind at that time, it's possible he was able to pick up some basic knowledge from Kirk's mind (i.e., the year) from simply preparing to begin the mind meld. --From Andoria with Love 15:54, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

OR, Spock was surprised at the fact that his younger self was the captain, as Kirk did mention that he threw him off for mutiny - Ooiue 11:22, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Saving the FederationEdit

In the opening paragraph someone has wrote that the Red Matter blackhole set off to save Romulus from the supernova was, somehow, saving the Federation??? Can someone with much more knowledge than I comment on this? I didn't believe Romulus was part of the Federation in 2387.--Italianajt 19:50, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Spock had to stop the supernova from expanding, or else it would have threatened many more worlds than just Romulus.Blair2009 20:36, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

But when is this explicitly stated? My understanding was that it would only affect Romulus. These are star systems millions of light-years apart. I mean, one supernova near Romulus would not affect the other Federation planets. I say this only becuase the wording states that, by saving Romulus, Spock was saving the Federation...which just doesn't make sense.--Italianajt 20:44, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

It may not make sense, but them's the movies. The star was nowhere near Romulus either... yet it destroyed the planet. Go figure. -- sulfur 20:48, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
Spock says, during the mind meld sequence, that the supernova threatened the entire galaxy. In the prequel comic book Countdown, it is explained that the nova converts all matter it destroys into energy to fuel its constant expansion. Admittedly, it doesn't make very good science, but it sure is dramatic! Blair2009 20:51, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
I'd also point out that star systems aren't millions of light years apart, the Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across. Not that it helps the science of it. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:56, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
Well, not that this is the same as the supernova in the movie but...we've been affected by supernova's from across the galaxy. We tend to get a burst of gamma radiation which affects satellites and evidence of which could also be found in the rocks at the time of the impact. Citation may be given if I can find one. But the BBC has done at least one show about it. :) I think I've gone off topic enough though. — Morder (talk) 21:13, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
I admit the "millions" statement was a bit overexaggerated but thank you all for your further explanations. Maybe in the next move an asteroid will be heading towards Qo'Nos which affects the very existence of all Andorians???? Now there's a plot for you.--Italianajt 19:15, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Spock's year of birth Edit

I'm reopening this discussion since the original is in the archives. The basis for revising Spock's year of birth from 2230 to 2232 is very weak, since the initial statement in the TAS episode concerning 20-30 years refers to Vulcan years specifically, making it more likely that the later 30-year statement by Spock was also in Vulcan years. It's just an unnecessary inconsistency with official sources, especially since the 2230 date (stardate 2230.06) almost became canon in Star Trek (2009) and was in fact used in the official movie comic. Also, while it may be an acceptable source on MA, TAS has hardly had more influence on the canon than sources like the Star Trek Chronology or the Star Trek Encyclopedia. I'm just not sure what is to be gained by creating this inconsistency. – 86.49.116.43 08:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, if he's born in 2232, then the pon farr seven year cycles make sense for him to experience it in 2267 (Amok Time) and it matches up with various dates of how old he was when entering the Academy, when he entered the Academy, how long he's been in Starfleet, etc. I support that Spock Prime was born in 2232 and Alternate Spock in 2230, if we consider the deleted scene from the 2009 film applicable. This is almost getting into a whole other argument, but it seems plausible that the universe depicted in the 2009 film was already an alternate quantum reality before Nero's incursion -- things already seem different between the two. 68.145.219.95 00:35, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Request for MA Community Consenus on Spock Naming Convention Edit

In some of the articles I've read on MA, the term "Spock" is used to refer to both The Original Series Spock and Star Trek 2009 alternate reality Spock. I propose the use of a modifier in addition to Spock's name in articles that refer to both Spocks, to allow readers to easily differentiate between them.

Let's use the Kolinahr article as an example. Although the hyperlinks for each reference to Spock do link to the appropriate articles, it isn't particularly clear, at-a-glance, to which Spock the article is referring.

For instance, if the 4th paragraph in the Kolinahr article began with, "Spock Prime" or "Original Series Spock" instead of just Spock, the information that followed would be clearer and more easily understood, particularly by newcomers to the Trek universe(s). Put another way, if The Original Series Spock is the subject of a sentence, it shouldn't take the reader to the end of the sentence or paragraph to figure out which Spock he is reading about. The use of a modifier with Spock's name would resolve this issue.

In the specific case of the Kolinahr article, the use of internally-linked section headings within the article, e.g. Original Timeline Spock and Alternate Reality Spock would provide clarity without having to change each occurence of Spock's name. However, because the use of section heading may not be advisable in every article, I still think the issue of a naming convention should be addressed.

I have not made changes to any articles, because I think that there should be a consensus on the naming convention before changes are made. Once more experienced contributors decide on (or refer me to) a policy, I will be happy to help with the changes as per the new guidelines.

To be clear, I am not advocating the use of one term over the other - I have no preference for using either Spock Prime or Original Series Spock when referring to the incarnation played by Leonard Nimoy. My primary concerns are clarity of communication and internal consistency, so I would be in favour of the terminology that would best achieve those goals. I defer to senior Trekkies/Trekkers on the matter of what name "sounds" best.

If this issue has already been addressed, please forgive me, as I am new to the MA community.

Thank You for your time. --PalindromicAnagram 10:23, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Some of our conventions typically allow to discern which Spock is talked about. In the Kolinahr article, for example, no specific article header (see the template page {{article type}}) exists, which means that the article is written from a "prime universe" point of view and typically refers to "old Spock". One paragraph of the article uses italics, which means that some other reality is being talked about - in this case, the "new universe".
We're trying to avoid the type of modifier you suggest, because it would most often break the "in-universe point of view" we're trying to use throughout. However, there has been a lengthy discussion about how to name articles about objects from the different timelines/universes. That discussion hasn't really come to a consensus and was eventually sidestepped by some editors, leading to the (in my opinion wrong) use of the term "alternate reality" when referring to objects from the ST11 timeline. -- Cid Highwind 10:42, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what Cid said, excepting the "sidestepped" and "wrong" parts, since I defiantly think the term alternate should be used in any disambiguation. That said, generally hovering over a link will display the destination article title, which in the case of Spock would be either: Spock, Spock (alternate reality), Spock (mirror), Spock 2, etc. - Archduk3 17:40, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar images Edit

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we usually place the most recent image of a character above the first appearance in the sidebar, as in Jean-Luc Picard, William T. Riker, Benjamin Sisko and Kira Nerys, to name but a few? It's not something that particularly bothers me, if there's a reason we've decided to do it this way. I just ask in the interest of consistency. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:42, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. I do not feel like putting on the picture of Spock from Star Trek 2009. Altough it is the same player I'd rather put up a picture of Spock from one of the TOS Movies or TOS itself. --Greeetz from xKirk32 (talk) 12:07, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Spock's eyebrow raise Edit

I realized this article doesn't mention Spock's characteristic of only raising an eyebrow to express emotion. Was this something shared by other Vulcans (sorry, never watched much VOY or ENT). I can remember Spock raising his eyebrow when afraid he was going to be executed in "The Omega Glory". Alientraveller 23:14, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

His name Edit

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 18:31, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

That's correct- which is why there isn't such an explanation in the article- it's wasn't specifically said in canon. --31dot 18:36, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
I think so too.96.248.19.186 15:08, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

New Universe movies Edit

Since he is going to be in the next movie (2013 Star Trek) and was in the last movie (2009 Star Trek) should a new article called Spock Prime be created that details his new life in the new universe since that universe new has two Spock's in it?

I know it's the same person (Spock and Spock Prime), played by the same actor but to be fair MA has a page for the Android B-4 and by the end of the movie B-4 is Data in a new body (as seen in the comic book prequel to Star Trek) 156.33.195.254 13:19, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Spock is still Spock, despite now joining a new timeline. B4 is still B4 at the end of Nemesis, as Countdown is not canon. -- sulfur 14:25, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then since the JJ Universe has 2 Spock's in it how about calling one Spock (Quinto), Spock (1st officer) or Spock (younger) and the other one Spock (Nimoy), Spock (Ambassador) or Spock (older) since both are Spock and both are in the same universe Nimoy's Spock is no longer Prime Spock unless he goes back to his universe is he?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.33.195.254 (talk).

The name of the Spock articles has been settled for some time, we have one for the alternate reality Spock and one for the Prime Spock. No other articles or naming scheme is necessary. 31dot 20:00, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
He is also still the same "Prime Spock" as previously. Just happens to have wandered elsewhere for a period of time. -- sulfur 20:06, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
Creating a page sounds like a good ida to me.96.248.19.186 15:11, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

"Just happens to have wandered elsewhere for a period of time" - like forever since it is doubtful that anything will take place in the main universe, plus Spock (prime) seems to be a main character in the JJ'Virse just like Spock (Alternate) 156.33.195.254 18:31, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+