Please change the title of this page to "Mimetic Symbiote" --Babaganoosh 06:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
well, it should be "symbiote" IMO.--Babaganoosh 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- We don't decide to go against the canon spelling. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Is it "canon spelling" - or is it just StarTrek.com messing up again? -- Cid Highwind 13:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Without another source, it would seem to me to be canon spelling. If someone can find a better source, like a script, then fine, but this is what we have. I would point out that this spelling is used twice, once in the title, once in the article. That indicates to me that this is not simple typo. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- (INSERT STANDARD RANT ABOUT "CANON" vs. "WHAT WE WRITE ABOUT" HERE). And No, that alone just indicates that the writer consistently thought that "simbiot" is the correct spelling while writing two or three adjacent sentences. ;) -- Cid Highwind 14:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the official transcript also spells it as "simbiot". [2] Since those have been known to be incorrect, as well, I'm not sure how helpful it is. --From Andoria with Love 15:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- How far do we take that line of thinking, though? Let's say a writer who can't spell writes an episode and consistently misspells "receive" as "recieve". Do we then say that by the 24th century, the spelling has changed? Or do we assume the writer has a problem with that word, and correct it? (And yes, I know we wouldn't be writing an article about the word "receive", so don't even go there; this is an intellectual exercise, and I just picked that as a common mistake.) -- Renegade54 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Receive" is not a proper noun, or name for something. "simbiot" is being used as the name for something. There is a line in the sand, should we need one. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Did you read what I wrote, for goodness sake??? I *know* receive is not a noun! Read the second half of my posting... that was just an example! Sheesh. -- Renegade54 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it was an example. I used it because I thought it was a good one. Your question was "how far should we take this", and I suggested the line in the sand be "proper nound" or "names of things". "Receive" is an example of something that is not a name. If you want, you can read my post again, but using the word "take" instead of "receive". It was just an example word, like the way you used it, not a response to the specific word. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the Dictionary doesn't have an entry on "simbiot" but does have symbiote.--Babaganoosh 17:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Star Trek invents words all the time. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, but if StarTrek.com made an error like "whyte blod sell" or an "Urth Kat", would we still be discussing this if the entry was one of those except correctly spelled? --Babaganoosh 18:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- To me, there is a clear difference here. This creature did not meet the definition of a "symbiote". It is quite different, in fact. It does not even live in a "symbiotic" relationship. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for a new word to be invented. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the character is called Sim and not "Sym". Sim could be short for "simulate" and biote comes from "bios", life, hence "Simbiot". --Jörg 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Jorg and Cobra, the spelling was most likely intentional on the part of the writers. In any case, we have two official sources stating that the spelling in "simbiot", so that's where it needs to stay. But you know, if you really want to get to the bottom of this, remember that a member of the production staff is a member of Memory Alpha. ;) --From Andoria with Love 21:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the character is called Sim and not "Sym". Sim could be short for "simulate" and biote comes from "bios", life, hence "Simbiot". --Jörg 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- To me, there is a clear difference here. This creature did not meet the definition of a "symbiote". It is quite different, in fact. It does not even live in a "symbiotic" relationship. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for a new word to be invented. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
An image of the simbiot Dr. Phlox had before it changed into a human (99.6.9.145 19:24, August 27, 2016 (UTC))