Talk:Spore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!

Contents 1 Spore Seed 2 Spore (video game) 3 Solution? 4 Requested Move 4.1 Survey 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Result

[edit] Spore Seed

What is the difference between a a spore and a seed?

A spore is not much more than a bit of germ plasm (haploid or diploid cell) in a protective coat; a seed is a package that contains the next generation as an embryo (therefore diploid) along with some amount (depending on the species) of stored food, and all that wrapped in a protetive coat. - Marshman 00:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are Spores Microbes?

Not always; many spores are reproductive or dispersal cells of macroscopic organisms.--Curtis Clark 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spore (video game)

I believe a more relevant article for Spore is Spore (video game) now that the game is so popular in media. This article could be named Spore (biology) or some such. I may be wrong though...

-- Andreas Blixt 16:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The scientific term spore is still the predominant meaning of "spore"; the article is fine where it is. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more strongly. The title of a video game is the more relevant meaning? Please! Peter G Werner 02:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is. Currently, the Spore video game page is getting thousands of reads. So is this, but it's only because when people type in Spore this is the first page they get to. Currently, Spore is definitely the more relevant page. However, a better idea would be for Spore to redirect to a disambiguation page and this page be, as he said, Spore (biology)

I just reverted an effective move of this page (see history of this and the disambig). Please do not move this page w/o achieving consensus at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Page moves like the one under discussion here can't be made unilaterally.--Kchase02 T 02:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this is a good place to test consensus before going to Requested Moves, and I'd say consensus for a move is not happening. Sorry, fans of Spore (video game).--Kchase02 T 02:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with moving it to Spore (biology). Like it or not, spore is primarily used in the scientific sense - if you go to India and ask the professors there what "spore" means they won't ask if you if you mean the game or not. I'm an avid gamer and I've never even heard of Spore (video game)! Also think about it this way, the upcoming release of Wikipedia on CD wants high quality articles, do you think the video game stands on equal footing as the scientific term? The computer game itself I am assuming takes its meaning from the scientific term as well, surely that indicates something about its heirachical nature.

Also, the current Spore page has more meaningful links to it (i.e. not user pages or talk pages]]. Is it really that hard for gamers searching for the video game to follow one little link at the top of the page? -- Serephine / talk - 02:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not move – I imagine the game was named after the biological structure. I know the biological structure was not named after the game. Case closed, IMO.--Curtis Clark 03:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Move= Yes, the game was named after the biological structure, however, my point is that the game is just as relevant as the biological structure. Who cares what it's named for? Also, the Matrix movie is named after matrixes.

Which matrix do you mean?--Curtis Clark 04:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that matrix is more relevant article than the matrix. Catch my drift. Gah, I'm getting off topic. I vote move, because the game is just as relevant as the scientific meaning. Case closed, IMO.

If you haven't heard of the game, what the hell? That doesn't give you the right to say 'I haven't heard of it, so it's not relevant!'. Because this game is a major step for video games and it's all over gaming news. It's relevant. Oh, and lastly, look at the talk page for the video game. Look at this talk page. See the size? Then look at the article size of the video game. Way bigger. This game is just as relevant as Spore. Mrmoocow 03:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The video game is named after the biological term. This move is ill advised and media attention for such things is fleeting, as opposed to established concepts in biology. Mike Dillon 03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is also "popularity" within wikipedia. About 300 things link to this Spore, whereas less than 100 link to the video game. Ideally, all of the links to this article will have to be changed. So, unless there's evidence of overwhelming popularity of this game akin to that of Grand Theft Auto, then the move is not a good idea.--Kchase02 T 03:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point Kchase02. Mrmoocow, I hardly dismissed your proposal because I haven't heard of the game... only that as an avid gamer who plays many of Will Wright's game that even I hadn't heard of it. It doesn't make it any less relevent, just gives you another point to consider. Your sweeping generalisations ("This game is just as relevant as Spore", "its all over gaming news", "currently, the Spore video game page is getting thousands of reads") look silly and do not help your argument in the face of the sourced facts offered here by others and myself ("About 300 things link to this Spore, whereas less than 100 link to the video game"). Argue your point calmly and with evidence to back you up, before you launch into what is quite frankly looking like a case of a teenage fan-boy looking to get his game attention -- Serephine / talk - 04:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the matrix entry, you'll see that it leads to a disambig page: for over 30 different entries. In this case we're looking at two: a game, and the scientific meaning from which that game was derived from -- Serephine / talk - 04:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my matrix point was stupid. I was just saying, you not having heard of the game is not a valid point. And, it is true that it is all over the gaming news. It won 3 awards at E3 2005, (including best of show) and I think it got two this year. Look into any gaming magazine and it should have mention of it. I might be sounding like the fanboy, but the page on the Spore game is currently more popular, due to all the hype in the media. Do you think the majority of wikipedians are actually searchin for this Spore? Look at the talk page on the game. It had to be archived for god's sake! Oh, and I wasn't saying it so the game gets attention. The game already has heaps of attention. I just wanted to do a quick change so I wouldn't have to go through this page to get to it.

Anyway, arguments aside, if you really are an avid gamer, than you'll like this game. Scroll down to the bottom and watch the 36 minute video. Mrmoocow 21:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Talk:Phaistos Disc has six archives. Ever heard of it?
• Wikipedians (as contrasted to Wikipedia users) search for articles to make links in articles they write.

Are you telling me you never search for anything that you want information about? Mrmoocow 22:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• "I just wanted to do a quick change so I wouldn't have to go through this page to get to it." Have you considered making a browser bookmark?--Curtis Clark 22:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is essentially over. Let's not dig up the hatchet, please.--Kchase02 T 22:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solution?

The Virus article may have an answer to make searching for the game easier, yet retaining the biological use as the primary article without renaming. The disambig link at the top of virus is as follows:

This article is about a biological infectious particle; for the computer term, see computer virus. For other uses, see virus (disambiguation).

I think for Spore, something along the lines of:

This article is about a biological reproductive particle; for the video game Spore, see Spore (video game). For other uses, see spore (disambiguation).

-- Serephine / talk - 05:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A similar solution was used on this page once before.--Curtis Clark 05:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh I see, I take that it was removed due to its redundancy when a disambig page was created? -- Serephine / talk - 05:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there any objections to reinstating the Spore (video game) link to the disambiguation notice?

– Andreas Blixt ☺ 12:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see any in the first place, should make everyone happy -- Serephine / talk - 12:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll copy your version of the disambiguation notice over the current one then.

– Andreas Blixt ☺ 12:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dang, guess that's better than nothing. At least I don't have to go through this page and the disambiguation page. Now I just have to go through this page :o. Mrmoocow 21:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the standard way of doing a disambiguation when one meaning of a word is major and all other are minor. As a "fan" of the Spore (video game) article, I wholly and utterly oppose moving this article anywhere, because the video game is so much less significant encyclopedically.

Incidentally, if you don't want to have to click through Spore to get to Spore (video game), click the "watch" link at the top of the vide game article and use your Watchlist. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, when typing spore into the search box and landing on this page, that the video game link has again been removed from the disambig link at the top. Since the edit summary was simply "rv [whatever]", and the consensus on the talk page seems to indicate support for inclusion of the video game link, I will put it back in there. If anyone feels that the additional link doesn't belong, please explain your position here rather than simply reverting. Dansiman 02:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it back correctly; I reverted a clumsy addition, and didn't have time then to go back in the history and find the text that had been used previously.--Curtis Clark 03:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

I think that since the Spore video game is getting so much attention in the media, the scientific meaning of Spore isn't the only relevant meaning. I think that Spore should redirect to a disambiguation page, which would have links to both the scientific and the video game meanings. This page would then become Spore (biology)Mrmoocow 02:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oh, and obviously I vote Strongly Support. Mrmoocow 02:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Mike Dillon 03:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the long run, and indeed, perhaps even in the short-run, the game is vastly less important than actual spores. --maru (talk) contribs 03:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose In the long run, the popularity of the game which was named after the actual object will simmer down. (I've been editing the Spore (video game) article as well; no bias be here) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: the use of spore is predominant as a scientific term (as indicated by wikipedia "What links here" pages and Google), the game is undeserving as yet of equal status -- Serephine / talk - 04:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose – Apple links neither to a dab page nor to the computer; I see no difference here.--Curtis Clark 04:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And Apple as a company is far more widely recognised than this game -- Serephine / talk - 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Although I beleive that a move would be useful for people who are searching for the game, the bad outweighs the good when it comes to having to deal with changing all the links. E946 04:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did it before. I'm actually new to wikipedia, so I didn't know the rules when it came to changes and it got reverted. It tooke me all of two minutes. The bad doesn't outweigh the good. 220.237.189.218 06:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. It's a bit more work.--Kchase02 T 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Wikipedia's page naming conventions are clear on this: "When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such consensus, there is no primary topic page."; in terms of page links, there are well over 250 for Spore, and fewer than 100 for Spore (video game) (and many of those are "User" and "User:Talk" pages).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter G Werner (talk • contribs).
• Strongly Oppose: As per Serephine. ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 06:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: While I was the first to suggest the move, after seeing the statistics for "What links here", I'll have to say that currently Spore will have to be the main article. However, I believe it's important that a link directly to Spore (video game) is available in the Spore article. If (once the game is released) it becomes a very big topic, it might be worth reevaluating this case. – Andreas Blixt ☺ 11:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose. That's speaking as a fan of both the incipient game and Wikipedia's editorial standards. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am eagerly anticipating the release of the game, but I still feel that the biological definition is more prevalent. Further, my personal belief is that other things being equal, preference should be given to standard academic topics; while Wikipedia is a broadly inclusive encyclopedia with a very wide scope, we shouldn't let that scope crowd out the traditional topics. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments.

• Not participating b/c we don't take votes on anything. We have a discussion (like below) and seek consensus.--Kchase02 T 03:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Straw polls are useful to gauge consensus. That is, in cases where the discussions are very messy and not obviously one-sided. In this case, only one or two users seem to be supporting the change in the discussions, so the poll isn't incredibly useful. It doesn't hurt, though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it is less of a vote and more a general survey to see what people think, one sentence describing your opinion is easier than reading through a page of comments :-) -- Serephine / talk - 04:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Sorry for the overly-stern response, Mrmoocow.--Kchase02 T 05:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result

I think that it's pretty safe to say from an objective and subjective point of view that the request for movement to Spore (biology) is not going to carry. However, the link to the video game has been reinstated at the top of the page in the disambiguatiuon link. I have removed the "Request for move" box from the top and hope that this compromise suits everyone -- Serephine / talk - 10:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

why doesn't "spore" go straight to the disambiguation page? I typed Spore and got here. It seems reasonable to go to that page instead. Maybe that has been discussed but I didn't have time to read through everything. I've got to get back to work. Dawhitfield 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that typing 'spore' should bring you to this page, as it is the accepted definition of the term, but there needs to be a link to the game at the top of the page due its popularity Ygoloxelfer 11:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)