Talk:Grok

seeing others as versions of oneself

RAH commented on this idea in his correspondence and it is a theme underlying many of his stories. For instance, in By His Bootstraps a man finds himself literally surrounded by versions of himself, which he fails to understand and with whom he even gets into a fistfight! This comes about by means of time travel, but RAH stated that the story was only incidentally about time travel and its paradoxes -- that just being a device to explore the theme of Other-as-self. Much the same can be said about All You Zombies. (and yes, I know these are both regarded as primarily time travelling stories.) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1508:FC82:66CC:D167 (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

---

• Grok → Grok (neologism)Grok (neologism)
• Grok (disambiguation) → GrokGrok

– Hits to this article have spiked since last November,[1] which coincides with the release of Grok (chatbot). Unlikely that this remains the primary topic. Move disambiguation page to main title, per WP:NOPRIMARY. 162 etc. (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the "(neologism)" token. Is a 63-year-old usage really considered newly-coined, given that every other entry for this word at the DAB page is somewhat or even many decades newer? Better might be "(word)", since the topic is the term itself not anything temporal (and certainly not correctly temporally sorted compared with the other meanings). DMacks (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  No objection to Grok (word), or other suitable disambiguation tag. 162 etc. (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Seems fairly early to call into question the term's long-term significance. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 05:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Grok says that there were 9k views and 91 clicks on the hatnote (~1%), and then https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Grok_%28disambiguation%29 says the only identifiable clickstream was - back to grok. —Per WP:PTOPIC, the major aspects to think about are long-term significance and usage, and this proposal explains neither. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  This clickstream data is from October 2023, which predates the creation of the Grok (chatbot) article. 162 etc. (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly, so how does this explain long-term significance? :) --Joy (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I made no mention of long-term significance. A look at the pageviews stats, which I linked in the nomination [2], shows that pageviews have spiked to the Grok article since November, and that is certainly not a coincidence. Presumably, many readers are landing at that page, but are instead seeking Grok (chatbot). See also WP:PT1. 162 etc. (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  OK, and WP:PT1 advises us to consider both of these aspects. A recent page view spike for another topic doesn't have to mean immediately discarding the existing assumption of primary topic, we should first analyze this with a modicum of rigor. --Joy (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The software's name was clearly based on and inspired by the term, the term wins with longterm significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Note that "Being the original source of the name is (...) not determinative." See WP:DPT. 162 etc. (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support the neologism may be primary by long-term significance by not by usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose clearly not a neologism. If it is a neologism, that most of the terms on this Wiki are decades newer, and are unworthy of inclusion on Wikipedia by that measure. That would include the Web and the Internet and any Wiki. If a "neologism" is over a decade old and has had use in that time, then it isn't a neologism. This neologism is about old enough to collect social security checks. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The chatbot is a new entry (in beta for two months at this point) in a highly volatile market. Give this more time to see how it fares -- and whether its name remains unchanged. --NapoliRoma (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PT1. Heinlein established the word some 60 years ago and many of the recent uses of the word reflect the Heinlein term. The Heinlein meaning is clearly the primary topic. Maybe review this when the chatbot has been around for 60 years? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

cURL reference to grok

The main web page of cURL referenced in the article no longer uses the word. Would it be better to remove the mention under the In computer programming section, or link to the Wayback Machine snapshot of the page as it existed then? G-J (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the relevant phrase was removed from that webpage on June 8, 2015.[3] DMacks (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Similar Scottish word

Scottish word, groke, to stare lovingly at someone while they are eating.

Should this be added to the see also?

Could also RH have been thinking of this word?

External reference: https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/scottish-word-of-the-week-groke-1531300 6GzNcwCM8w?7 (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@6GzNcwCM8w?7 The See also section usually lists links to other related Wikipedia articles. If there is one that talks about what you suggest, then it may fit there. To an external source may not be the best to be listed there. FULBERT (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

That is part of the reason for not adding groke to the article, but rather have put this into the talk section.

Would it be appropriate to add to the See Also section, but as an ungenerated wikipedia article. Or should I generate a barebones article, leaving for more appropriate editors to flesh it out. 6GzNcwCM8w?7 (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)