Talk: Vulcan (alternate reality)

Revision as of 22:50, 17 May 2009

Shouldn't we add the info about, what happend for Nero arrival? Nero only changeg the future, but not the past, so everything whats happend before that point in time, did happend.

--Darth Stefan 13:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Darth Stefan

Are you saying that this should also cover everything up to Nero's arrival? I think that this is kind of like the case of the Thomas Riker article: more information than 'what makes it different from Vulcan prime' would ultimately be somewhat redundant. --Jayunderscorezero 15:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Prime Vulcan info

How much info should this article contain that is derived from the Vulcan of the Prime timeline? I refer to the mention of tourist attractions on Vulcan, among other comments, which were not mentioned in the movie. Now, most of them are very likely correct, but doesn't adding them here simply duplicate the Prime Vulcan article? Shouldn't this article mostly consist of information described in the movie?--31dot 01:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the character articles that deal with events before the 2233 incursion have some info. So, I would think that a modified history is in order. In this case, there is isn't much history to begin with. --Guiseppi72 02:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

to user; 31dot. I only added that line about, 'tourist attractions' since it was on the the prime page. It is definitely not relevant. Also, doesn't the prime reality only take place after 2233? Meaning that I would maintain that historical info should be added since it is part of the same timeline as events prior to 2233 regardless of the other reality. --Guiseppi72 02:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of Vulcan's history is pre 2233 (Enterprise). We shouldn't duplicate info. Only state what was in the movie and that's it. — Morder 02:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about more than just what is in the movie. The article should stand alone (history and all) like its counterpart does. It needs its history as does every article that is from the movie. To have it be just about the events of the movie paints half of the picture. So, I maintain that it needs its history for the same reason that it counterpart does. --Guiseppi72 02:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why we can link to the Vulcan prime article. There's no need to repeat data as any update to the other page would necessitate an update to this page. — Morder 02:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I get what you are saying. But at this point, with the new timeline, what makes the counterpart that standard or the go to article? Fortunately, concerning what was revealed in the movie there is not much more to add history-wise to most of the articles. Not like the above mentioned Thomas Riker. --Guiseppi72 02:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, simply because it's the Prime article. We have a link to the history for anyone to read. Any additions to this article should simply be about the alternate reality vulcan. Sure their histories are the same with regards to pre 2233 info but duplication is simply unnecessary and one location is preferable. — Morder 02:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"what makes the counterpart that standard or the go to article?"

Because it's Vulcan prime - the Vulcan we've been dealing with since Star Trek began. It's not worth adding info from there to here - it's called Vulcan (alternate reality) because it's different from Vulcan prime. Noting all the same information would be redundant and waste space. Have a link with something like "for the History of Vulcan (alternate reality) because Nero's temporal incursion, please see Vulcan (prime universe)." I'm probably just saying useless stuff here - it's already been decided, yes? --AnonyQ 02:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse....but this 'alternate reality' is significantly different than an article an Thomas Riker. In many ways it deserves its own wiki. Am I the only one who feels that way? Its not just redundant or just duplicating info, it is relevant to the alternate universe. Links to the so-called 'prime reality' isn't fair to the reader, because the 'prime' article will have info that is not relevant to the 'alternate' article. They are going to be surfing around enough. Not everyone will know how to make the distinction....that's all for now. --Guiseppi72 22:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This wiki has an omniscient POV and is aware of all possible universes. We can change that if we want to, but as it stands now there is no reason to have a separate wiki.--31dot 22:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Because it's Vulcan prime - the Vulcan we've been dealing with since Star Trek began. It's not worth adding info from there to here - it's called Vulcan (alternate reality) because it's ''different'' from Vulcan prime. Noting all the same information would be redundant and waste space. Have a link with something like "for the History of Vulcan (alternate reality) because Nero's temporal incursion, please see Vulcan (prime universe)." I'm probably just saying useless stuff here - it's already been decided, yes? --[[User:AnonyQ|AnonyQ]] 02:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 : Not to beat a dead horse....but this 'alternate reality' is significantly different than an article an Thomas Riker.  In many ways it deserves its own wiki. Am I the only one who feels that way?  Its not just redundant or just duplicating info, it is relevant to the alternate universe.  Links to the so-called 'prime reality' isn't fair to the reader, because the 'prime' article will have info that is not relevant to the 'alternate' article.  They are going to be surfing around enough.  Not everyone will know how to make the distinction....that's all for now.  --[[User:Guiseppi72|Guiseppi72]] 22:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
+:::This wiki has an omniscient POV and is aware of all possible universes.  We can change that if we want to, but as it stands now there is no reason to have a separate wiki.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 22:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)