Nero's arrival Edit

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

--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 Edit

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)
Again, duplication of info is unnecessary. To solve issues about info that is not relevant... all you have to do is specify events after this date do not apply to the alternate reality vulcan. — Morder 22:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
to 31dot: I was being Facetious about the other wiki....I was just over stating, as I'm sure you are aware. --Guiseppi72 23:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Casualty NumbersEdit

Can one of the administrators comment on whether the comment about the low numbers possibly being only related to those ON the planet is true? While it did come from Orci's interview both Spock and Spock Prime mention that the low number of Vulcans left in the galaxy. This is Spoke Prime's main reason for not staying with the Enterprise - "There are so few of us." -Italianajt 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not "true" in the sense of canon. But it is "true" in the sense of being what the writers have said it is possible. Hence it's in background here.– Cleanse 23:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Planet Vulcan's Future / Closed Reality ?Edit

In the 'alternate reality' from the latest film from J.J. Abrams, Planet Vulcan is destroyed. Since Vulcan founded the Federation and has always been intergral to the Star Trek universe and IDIC, I took it for granted that this 'alternate reality' would be closed in a subsequent film sequel, which would bring Planet Vulcan back to life and reconcile the timelines. Was this a bad assumption on my part? I've not found a discussion on this topic anywhere. Can a continuing Trek franchise exist without a Planet Vulcan? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

There is no way of knowing what the creative team has in store for subsequent films, though I think it could be presumed that Vulcan will not be revived, because that would strip the dramatic core of the most recent film. --- Jaz 04:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I found that the destruction of Vulcan / Amanda's death an interesting way to get around the established canon. A new 'alternative timeline' means that the writers are in no way obligated to rigoriously stick to established ST history. The federation was established in Jonathan Archer's time so it already exists. BobT
I wouldn't have made this change, but I suspect it won't have serious ramifications. I think they'll go with Vulcans as revered but scarce "wise men" in future movies. It's not a franchise-ending change because we've rarely seen more than a handful of Vulcans at a time. Rob Schmidt
"it could be presumed that Vulcan will not be revived, because that would strip the dramatic core of the most recent film" Spock? Is that you? --TribbleFurSuit 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nitpick Edit

This article mentions that there were Vulcans serving aboard Federation starships. According to the novelization (which I know is technically non-canon), Spock said he was going to be the first Vulcan in Starfleet. Could someone explain this on the talk page?- JustPhil 23:09, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Though I can't answer it. The first vulcan in starfleet does not mean that there wasn't any other vulcans serving - just that he was the first. He was already a first officer in the movie and there could have been vulcan cadets and what-not. Though this is all speculation but it answers part of your question. — Morder (talk) 23:30, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Prime infoEdit

Sorry to bring this up again, but I notice that there's still a lot of info on the prime Vulcan here. Shouldn't this be removed? -Angry Future Romulan 21:26, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what the information is, historical accounts from before the timeline split (as the writers consider it, but I don't know if I would, that is beside the point though), or how the movie portrays it (See previous comment), would likely be the same as it's supposed to be the same. I can admit, that is actually not entirely clear in and of itself, but that's apparently the bases in which Memory Alpha is operating on. --Terran Officer 21:46, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Does this really need to be a separate article? Edit

A lot of the information on this page is also found on the original Vulcan page, with just the Battle of Vulcan info keeping them apart. I'm not sure that's enough to warrant a separate article. I'm not proposing a merge (yet) but would like some clarification on why this is a separate page. - Mitchz95 (talk) 04:02, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Things that are significantly different in the alternate reality, and Jonathan Archer for some reason, get their own page. The planet's destruction counts as a significant difference. - Archduk3 22:49, April 29, 2013 (UTC)