Talk:Leonard Nimoy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Statement by Buzz Aldrin

Again in consideration of the rarity of astronauts saluting actors, and of the germaneness of Aldrin's assessment re the accessibility of space travel (real or imaginary), I propose adding the short, sweet and to the point:

NASA astronaut Buzz Aldrin called Nimoy "a fellow space traveler because he helped make the journey into the final frontier accessible to us all."

References

• Support as nom. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Weak oppose At some point, we are going to have to cut the "statements" by celebrity fans down to just a mention that they said something without quoting them. We can't -- and shouldn't -- make this a WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:MEMORIAL. Neither is encyclopedic and both are in opposition to guidelines and policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - In no way do I won't to seems unsympathetic but Winkelvi is correct, I feel the memorial site line has been crossed already, on the other hand if we're going to include NASA's video comment, a pictured statute from the space station how can we deny Aldrin, the hard task it figuring where and/or when to draw the line. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You both are indeed correct, and that is precisely why I made the proposal rather than simply add the passage. The word "unique" is overused, but this case is: an original astronaut giving credit to an actor for, at the very least, giving people the freedom to dream, if not to actually achieve. (Edit: the quote, of course, can always be paraphrased; à la, NASA astronaut Buzz Aldrin called Nimoy a fellow space traveler because the actor helped make the voyage "into the final frontier accessible to us all.") —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I don't see why his tribute section has to be two paragraphs only. Adding one more is not going to violate WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:MEMORIAL. No need to be cheap with unlimited space when as ATinySliver said, these kind of tributes are rare, as is an icon like Leonard Nimoy. Wikimandia (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In the alternative ...

... as elsewhere in the article, we could do something along these lines. Just a thought. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"I was saddened to learn of the passing of Leonard Nimoy, a fellow space traveler because he helped make the journey into the final frontier accessible to us all. ... While the late Neil Armstrong's "one small step for man" ... is ageless, so, too, is Spock's iconic "live long and prosper," a phrase that ... for me, translated into a peaceful progression of exploring the vastness of outer space for all mankind."

NASA astronaut Buzz Aldrin^[cite]

Possible sources at Wikisource

s:Tribute to Leonard Nimoy by Adam Schiff transcribed text at Wikisource

s:Statement by the President on the Passing of Leonard Nimoy transcribed text at Wikisource

These files, particularly the first one s:Tribute to Leonard Nimoy by Adam Schiff -- might be useful as sources that could be used for some basic biographical info in the article.

Hope that's helpful,

— Cirt (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Spocking" the Canadian fiver

I see there's a back-and-forth on this subject, so I thought I'd start a discussion. On the one hand, this tribute is sufficiently prevalent that numerous news stories have the Bank of Canada actually asking citizens to stop it. On the other hand, the prose would need to be rewritten to make it more clear that it's a tribute to Nimoy, rather than to Spock. I'm on the fence about this one, to be honest; it would be pure trivia, but that the Bank has made a statement leans me toward weak support. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's probably a tribute to neither, by the proper definition of a tribute as a "testimonial, compliment, or the like," or "something that you say, give, or do to show respect or affection for someone." This one's more an expression of cultural popularity. --Light show (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly a "strange sort of tribute". —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Strange and unencyclopedic trivia, from my perspective. No support from me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree no need at all to mention. -- Moxy (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Upon further research, in particular an excellent essay by Mashable, "Spocking" is hardly a new phenomenon. Even though the current resurgence of sorts appears to be a response to an exhortation by the Canadian Design Resource to do it "for Leonard Nimoy", I'm inclined to change an admittedly weak support to an admittedly weak oppose. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if some country or group does something serious, like imprinting a coin, it might be worth calling a tribute. --Light show (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Only if it's to Nimoy ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As a cultural phenomena this sort of thing might warrant it's own article. Money burning#Canada mentions that it is legal in Canada. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking a sub at Canadian five-dollar note ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried looking for news on this outside of English speaking countries and there isn't much. I am not sure this is quite a notable enough meme to include in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. We'll see. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Should it be decided that it could be included in the article, there is a image that could be transferred from Flickr to commons here. Miyagawa (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Nimoy's occupations in lead

Nimoy's occupation's, in the lead specifically, are too many. Same goes for many actors and singers. The lead is meant for the primary occupations, not something that is done on the side, only done on occasion, for primary careers. Others can be in the infobox. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD and in particular the sub§ on the first sentence, my personal preference would be to supplant "poet" with "photographer". —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(x2) "Too many" according to whom and what, Joseph? If he was all of those things and they are verifiable, how is it too many? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you could. It says in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies that The opening paragraph should have:

Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)); Dates of birth and death, if known (but for dates of birth see WP:BLPPRIVACY, which takes precedence); for how to write these dates, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates of birth and death; Context (location or nationality); In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played; Why the person is notable. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

... and "why the person is notable" is exactly why I (and, again, this is my preference) would supplant "poet" with "photographer". Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"Why the person is notable". He is not for photography. Not too sure about poet though. Let me use another example. I can verify that Drake Bell directed the first half of Drake & Josh: Really Big Shrimp. Should television director be included. No, not even in the infobox. All occupations can stay in the infobox, but not the lead. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're not sure about his history as a poet, then why the hell are you claiming he wasn't known for his poetry and it should be deleted from the lead? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Re not notable for photography: I respectfully disagree. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I do, as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the article, he is not. Winkelvi, are starting to sound like you are trying to insult me due to my age and "when you don't get your way". Occupations, when in a BLP, have most known occupations in the lead. He is most known as an actor, director, and music more than a poet or a photographer. Let me use another example. Taylor Swift, a GA, only has singer-songwriter in the lead because that is mainly what she known for, not acting, not philanthropy, and not record producing. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Those comments were made on your talk page in response to your response to the edit warring warning template I placed on your talk page. Why you are bringing it all here, I'm not sure. Oh, wait, it just occurred to me: possibly you're trying and discredit me, therefore, others will dismiss my comments and opinions as well. Well, since you opened the door, you were edit warring and you do have a history of pouting and edit warring when you don't get your way. As I said on your talk page, sorry to be blunt, but it's the truth and you are starting to do the same here, from what I can see. The discussion would be much better without such behavior. So, how about we base this discussion on the merits (or lack of) the arguments presented here, huh? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Like an edit war, true argumentum ad hominem requires multiple participants. Unfortunately, I've done it myself, an error in judgment of which I'm attempting to be mindful. Let us all discuss the issues, not the editors. Myself included. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking (typing?) only for myself, if the article inadequately outlines his photography career—and it was a career—it should be fixed within the article. A Google news search (admittedly an imperfect gauge, but useful) for “nimoy poetry” returns about 35,000 results, leading with a Huffington Post article calling him “an artist away from camera, delving into photography, music and poetry. Nimoy published numerous collections of his poems …”

The same search for “nimoy photographer” returns more than 2,000,000 results, leading with Mashable’s “Leonard Nimoy, photographer: A selection of photos from Mr. Spock’s other career”.

Understanding, again, that I speak only for myself, this was the only “other career” with which I’ve been familiar. (I tend to ignore the singing … ) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, he did release five albums, which is why music can be a main career. I just don't think photography and possibly poetry are the main things he is known for. All of my previous examples, Drake Bell, has only been dubbed an actor and singer-songwriter in the lead, yet is a multi-instrumentalist, record producing, television director and comedian. Justin Bieber only a singer and songwriter, yet has also a little acting, and Taylor Swift only a singer-songwriter, even though she has acting, philanthropy, and record producing. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you completely re the poetry; still, I think the case for "photographer" is very strong. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The case for poet is also very strong. Aside from Nimoy's own webpage (leonardnimoypoetry.com), a quick search comes up with "About 1,160,000 results", among them, seven books of published poetry with Nimoy as the author/poet at Amazon.com. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, never said it wasn't notable, but only the careers THAT ARE MOST KNOWN FOR belong in the lead. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Point conceded. In that event, in approximate order of why people might visit his article, I would propose "... was an American actor, film director, photographer, singer, songwriter and poet." Per the "concise summary" language in WP:LEAD, I don't think this is overkill. Thoughts? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 Joseph Prasad, you say "the careers THAT ARE MOST KNOWN FOR", but that's not how leads are always set up. In fact, "most known for" is POV. Which brings me to the realization that your desire to only see professions Nimoy (or any article subject) are "best/most known for" is a request for us to allow POV from whomever comes to the article, edits it, and decides for themselves out of their own POV what an article subject is "best/most known for". We don't do that here. We include what article subjects are known for (and in some cases in opening paragraphs, what they are not as known for). Best/most doesn't play into it at all, based on WP's policy and guidelines on NPOV. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like slight overkill, and it says WHY THE SUBJECT IS NOTABLE. Is that the reason why he is notable? Did people at all discover him through his photography or poetry? A search for "Leonard Nimoy poetry" yields. only 879,000 results, not 1.1 million. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not the general results that led to my proposal, it's the news results, which convinced me that it should be there, if last. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If the same exact info on the occupations is placed in an infobox and in the lead, there is no point whatsoever in an occupation section of an infobox. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again. The purpose of an infobox is to give a glimpse. The purpose of the lead paragraph is to summarize the article entire. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You're starting to act like you're a huge know-it-all. There is not even a section, any info on poetry, just links. And a tiny paragraph on Photography. If those are so notable, why isn't there more information on those? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm just someone who understands policy and MOS a little better than you. If there isn't more in the article on the photography, you're welcome to expand it as I'm sure there's plenty out there that can be made into more content on it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please? Telling someone s/he is "wrong again" attacks the editor. Something like "but that is wrong, per the guidelines" attacks the issues. Saying someone is "starting to act like" something attacks the editor. Et cetera. We all do it on occasion; we all need to be certain before we click "Save page". —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Oh, I was quite "certain" when I clicked on Save page. He was wrong again. And wrong when he tried to refactor his comments at another editor's talk page to make it look like he wasn't canvassing for support at this talk page. Just like he was wrong when he said he wasn't edit warring at this article. And when he was wrong about what infoboxes are for and what lead sections are for. He needs to understand that when he has policy and guidelines wrong, is told he's wrong, and insists on still doing the wrong thing and thinking the wrong thing about all of it, he's wrong. Not that we want perfection from editors. But if someone's going to insist they are right over and over when they are told over and over they aren't, that's, well -- it's wrong and needs to be pointed out so the disruption stops. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is paramount within the confines of a collaborative effort that we collaborate. It is paramount that we confine the necessary conflicts to the issues (until and/or unless bad faith is demonstrable—and, vehemence of disagreements notwithstanding, I am not seeing bad faith here). —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, u, are the one in support of the occupations, why should I have to add it? Obviously, you can't find a lot of info on these, otherwise you would have added it yourself. And sorry, for the attack, his comment brought on mine. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You asked above, "There is not even a section, any info on poetry, just links. And a tiny paragraph on Photography. If those are so notable, why isn't there more information on those?" If I may? It's because Wikipedia is, to all intents and purposes, a living, breathing encyclopedia—a continuous and continuing effort to compile human knowledge. This article, like all others, is not finished and, in theory, never will be. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Joseph, you're the one bitching about the section on photography not being substantial enough, not me. If you think it's too small a section, then do something about it. Help build the encyclopedia. I didn't look for anything more on his photography because I'm not concerned with the size of the section. Your assumption and unfounded accusation is, however, noted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the subject (): Joseph Prasad, do you find my proposed wording agreeable? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what was your wording again? Sorry, I forgot at some point during my "bitching". -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You, Winkelvi, need to stop the personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Prasad (talk • contribs)

Everybody stop. Please. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording: "... was an American actor, film director, photographer, singer, songwriter and poet." —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Prasad, let's see: you were edit warring, canvassing, refactoring your comments, and making unfounded accusations. Yeah, sure -- I'll stop the alleged "personal attacks". You're going to stop doing all I listed, right (and get your eye back on policy, guidelines, and building an encyclopedia)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Really, you were making the edit warring worse. Canvassing, I was not, as I know that editor doesn't give a biased opinion. I "refactored" my comments to please you, to change it to what you think is right, you were making personal attacks, and editing others comments. You think you're not in any way in the wrong. And I wasn't making any "unfounded accusations". -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

*sigh* So, who will it be? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Occupation vs. hobbies

Is anyone claiming that because he wrote and sang a song on the track of a few albums, such as Mr. Spock's Music from Outer Space, we should add "singer" and "songwriter" to his occupation? Or because he enjoyed photography as a hobby, with a few gallery shows, that "photography" was also his occupation? If so, it effectively undermines his occupation section of the infobox with non-notable trivia, imo, and lists such things on an equal basis with what he's 99.99% noted for. Same with "poet," something he did on the side and was not an occupation, as people would normally think of it. The lead sentence should also separate his real occupation with his personal interests, even if he made a few dollars from them. This discussion is embarrassing. --Light show (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying all along. Except for the music part, he has released multiple studio albums, so singer and songwriter can apply. Neil Patrick Harris counts as a singer. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are only secondary and minor aspects related to his acting career. They can be mentioned in the lead, but it should be clear that they were things he also did during his primary career. Mixing all this without such distinction harms his bio. --Light show (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to the infobox, I tend to agree to a point; "Actor • film director • photographer" should go there. Everything else was professional to varying degrees (book-writing and poetry, for example, were more than hobbies, but less than a primary source of income). Just one editor's opinion. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Some editors have said only primary occupations belong in the lead, other occupations can belong in the infobox. Take Taylor Swift, Justin Timberlake, and Drake Bell as examples, which I have mentioned before. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And I can't argue that either is "wrong", given that I can find no consensus on the issue on WP:LEAD, its talk page or Wikipedia talk pages on similar subjects; hence the discussion here. For example, the current wording in the lead sentence was based on what, admittedly in my estimation, would have brought a hypothetical reader to the article. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Light show, you wrote that Nimoy's photography saw "a few gallery shows". In the eyes of most professional photographers, that would make him a professional, not a hobbyist. The fact that he has had at least one book of his photography published makes him a professional photographer, not a hobbyist. He also was a recording artist whose albums of songs he performed and wrote sold. That also makes him a professional in the field. I don't know what the big deal is or how this discussion is "embarrassing" as you categorized it. And Joseph Prasad, please stop comparing the short lives and careers of celebrities like Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Justin Timberlake, and Drake Bell to the life of Nimoy because their lives and careers aren't comparable. Nimoy was in his 80s when he died and was writing poetry and taking photographs, his books and recordings still selling up until his death. It's entirely possible for someone of his age who had given up the rigors of Hollywood on a regular basis to create new careers and professions for himself. Sure, he was wealthy without all of those professions, but that doesn't make them less of a profession. We have several reliable sources that refer to him as a poet, a songwriter, a photographer, etc. and that's sufficient to verify him as a professional in those fields. After all, that's what we go on: verifiability via reliable sources as the threshold of inclusion for content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

By your logic, writer should be included as well. And Timberlake and Bell's career aren't short, spanning over 20 years. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is -- in comparison with Nimoy's -- their careers are relatively short. The point also is -- in comparison with Nimoy's multi-faceted career(s) -- their careers are only focused in a few direction. Ergo, no comparison. Maybe in 40 or 50 years, but not currently. And yes, he's written several books. So author would also be appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Brevity, or its lack, notwithstanding, if someone added "author" to the lead sentence, I for one would not revert it ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact, with respect to Winkelvi, I've moved it up in importance per this, one example of a source showing he wrote I Am Spock in part to counter the criticism of I Am Not Spock. To me, this means more people will know him as an author than as, say, a poet. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I totally understand what you're saying, Winkelvi, but those facts don't distinguish for a casual reader that they were secondary, minor and probably insignificant income sources, but which you still promote as a "profession." They were not what he was mainly notable for. As for a hobbyist photographer/Hollywood star having their photos shown at a gallery, compared to his acting career, that would not properly be called another "profession." No one would have introduced Nimoy at a public event as "actor and photographer," or "actor and poet." Those other aspects would not be defined as his "profession," whether or not he got paid. I'd venture the average person considers that someone's "profession" is also their primary career.

Tony Curtis and Red Skelton were hobbyist painters whose works still sell for thousands of dollars in galleries, primarily because of who they were. Their WP occupation is listed as "actor." Elizabeth Taylor and Gwyneth Paltrow were/are involved with perfumes and other cosmetics, or jewelry for Taylor. Their "occupation" is listed as "actor." You'll find endless celebrities who have widened their personal interests into businesses, like restaurants, but we don't call them "entrepreneurs" or "restaurateurs" on equal footing with their notable profession. It's fine to mention, but it should be clear to readers what their mainly notable for, or it unbalances the bio. IMO. The infobox looks silly if it lists any and every income source a celebrity had.--Light show (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"No one would have introduced Nimoy at a public event as 'actor and photographer,' or 'actor and poet.'" May I respectfully disagree? :D —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturally, when he's invited to lecture about "secret selves." As the woman introducing said, there are thousands of other facets to Leonard Nimoy that you may not know. He is a multi-talented artist in many fields. He has produced work not only in theater and film but also in music, song-writing, poetry, story telling, and -most frequently- and most prominently in fine-arts photography. Thousands. She makes it clear what he was notable for, and rightly distinguishes the unknown talents. --Light show (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the hitch is here. He was a published author, poet, and photographer. Not a hobbyist. PUBLISHED. Several times over. What is the issue with recognizing this and keeping it in the article? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

... and, in noting that the attendees "may not know", she then explains why they should. Somehow, I don't think "Leonard Simon Nimoy was an American actor. Oh and he dabbled in a bunch of other shit." would have quite the same effect. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with keeping those other talents or hobbies in the article. It's about introducing them in a way that does not distinguish what he's primarily noted for. Almost anyone nowadays can become a "published author," or poet, or photographer as a side income. It's a question of balance, so that if he earned $10 million as an actor and $1,000 from publishing poetry, for example, they should not be listed alongside each other as if they were comparable. It simply requires keeping the infobox facts to what he's most notable for and use the lead to add something like, "and he was also a poet, photographer, . . ." Note that James Dean also raced cars as a mini profession. His occupation in WP is "actor." And Mickey Rooney danced and sang in his films, but his WP box calls him an "actor."--Light show (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

... and on balance you have featured articles like Nancy Cartwright, which lists "Actress, comedian, voice artist", and Judy Garland, which lists "actress, singer, vaudevillian". That having been said, I agree Nimoy's infobox is too inclusive, as I've said before; personally, I'd pare it down to actor, author, film director and photographer. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox, yes. Lead paragraph, no. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I continue to agree with this assessment. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Those articles should have mentions of their other professions. The infobox, not so much, since the infobox is supposed to be a glimpse, not a summary (as the lead paragraph is to be). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, infoboxes usually have the other miscellaneous occupations. Why do you think, like the articles Light Show mentioned only list actor? Jeez, this article is starting to look like Lucille Ball's. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, you're wrong, and are having difficulty understanding the difference in the purpose of an infobox and the purpose of the lead paragraph. I hoped you would look into these definitions on your own. As it seems you have not, I will provide you with them:

• Purpose of an infobox: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
• Purpose of the lead paragraph: "Provide an accessible overview...The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

There is a definite difference between the infobox contents and the content in the lead paragraph. Your continued arguments about which should contain what fly in the face of the purpose for each. Hopefully this will help you better understand that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You say it's nothing personal, and yet it always seems to be. And you say the infobox is not to summarize, and yet it says SUMMARIZE key facts. Therefore, the infobox is a summary. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not personal. But your inability to understand what you are being told (and not just by me) is at the WP:IDHT stage and is, frankly, getting pretty irritating. As evidenced (again) by something being directed at you and your response is, "It's not me" (see below and see the AN/I discussion). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The issues, everyone. Please? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not my fault, he keeps getting on me. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The old line "it takes two to tango" applies; if you simply ignore what you think is "getting on" you then, hypothetically, if the other person were to persist, he or she persists alone, and there's no dance. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No tango, maybe, but he can still solo dance. --Light show (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if all those less known talents need to be included in the lead paragraph, I think something like the following would be better:

. . . was an American actor, director, screenwriter, and stage actor, mostly noted for his role as Mr. Spock in the Star Trek television series and films. He was also an accomplished photographer and singer/songwriter, and wrote a number of books, including poetry. --Light show (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Change "mostly noted" to "known" per WP:WEASEL, and drop "stage actor" as a sub of "actor", and you'd have no argument from me. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's fine, but actor and stage actor is redundant, just like actor and voice actor. Pretty much, I agree with ATinySliver. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. --Light show (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

FINALLY! SEEING CONSENSUS!!! -- Joseph Prasad (talk)

Please don't shout (use all caps). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

First, we should never use "mostly noted" or "best known for" as they are POV.

Second, the man was a published author, poet, and photographer. Nothing wrong with it as it is and I maintain it should stay as is.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Damn it, nevermind. Best Known for isn't POV if it's what he achieved most of his awards for, or what can be most found on him. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Best known" is considered POV and isn't acceptable. Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see where it said that, cause I see it among many articles. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

... but we usually shouldn't. "Best known for", per encyclopedic policy, should be accompanied by a reliable, secondary source that actually says so. That's why its use is uncommon and usually discouraged. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2: You see it in articles because Wikipedia isn't finished or perfected. Just because you see it in another article doesn't make it acceptable. For just a moment, how about you try stopping and thinking about it -- what the words "Best" and "Most" really are saying. And if they are words that should be used in a NPOV setting, a place where we bias is not to be found. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not simply POV. The first sentence in the "Star Trek" section states, Nimoy's greatest prominence came from his role as Spock, the half-Vulcan, half-human alien hybrid on Star Trek series. --Light show (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure we can find a source for "best known as Spock on Star Trek". -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's already there. If we include "best known" or a variant in the lead, an invisible comment such as <!-- See ref name: Fischer. --> should accomany it. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's already there, it needs to be changed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If a reliable source says he's best known, then it's fine to leave there. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure to whom this responds; I meant that the reliable source for such a phrase (or a mutually agreeable variant) is already cited within the article. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And Winkelvi's trying to change it before the discussion is done. It was towards Winkelvi. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Bloody protracted discussions; I was responding to Winkelvi. Meantime, I've performed an edit that quotes the author, in compliance with policy. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the occupation field is fine the way it is currently. My take on "best known for" is this example, 30,000 people do not go to a Led Zeppelin concert wanting to see Jimmy Page play the ukulele even though he has played it. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The NY Times obit, footnote 1, "Leonard Nimoy, best known for playing the character Spock in the Star Trek television shows and films." --Light show (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source. I'll take it. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the opinion of the obit writer. Still POV and not appropriate or acceptible for Wikipedia purposes. We can say "So-and-so from the NYT said he was best known for..." but Wikipedia can't say it. See the difference? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

When has NYT used POV? And you can tell from his accolades.

When has the NYT used POV? How about every day of its existence like all newspapers. And with that, I'm done (for the night) arguing and fighting against someone who isn't old enough to vote or drive and insists on employing IDHT along with tendentious and at war editing behavior. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, personal attack on me due to my age. You can't debate without insulting someone can you? And I can drive, I turn 16 next sunday. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Please watch your comments, I'd hate to see you get blocked for personal attacks. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 06:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Good words for us all. I, too, have been involved in content disputes where I was positive the other editor was being obstinate or POINTy, or had OWN and/or NPA issues. When that happens, I try to remember to ask myself, Does the other editor feel the same way about me? Am I giving the other editor a reason to feel that way? Food for thought ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Updated suggestion for lead sentence: . . . was an American actor, director and screenwriter, best known known for his role as Mr. Spock in the Star Trek television series and films. He was also an accomplished photographer and singer/songwriter, and wrote a number of published books, including poetry. --Light show (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, known is used twice, second, Winkelvi won't like that "best known". -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The lead is fine as it is in regard to his credits/occupations. No need to change what's there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I would use "known primarily" over "best known", but that's admittedly semantic. I would also be sure that "accomplished" is properly sourced in the appropriate section. Still, I too have no argument with how it reads now and would not be compelled to change either. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

With Nimoy did he survived on March 2nd 2015

Nimoy didn't work in 2015 films and he died because of diseases but is he healed in March 2, 2015? It seems like Americans being healed by someone. --182.191.188.102 (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Joe Phillips Dennis

Dead and buried. What are you asking? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 10:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I was asking about Nimoy being dead and not clever again Is he survived on March 2015? --182.191.188.102 (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Pelly Wiskions

If you are attempting to be sarcastic or humorous, it is being lost in translation. Nimoy died on February 27, 2015, so no, he did not "survive" in March 2015. If you are trying to point out a problem or a potential improvement to the article, please be more specific, because I don't think any of the editors of this article understand what you're trying to say (I certainly don't). Dwpaul ^Talk 12:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the IP was trying to call attention to their own vandalism, here. Please don't do that again, or risk being blocked. Dwpaul ^Talk 12:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Audio sample File:The Brain's Inner Workings - Part 1 - Structure and Function - Leonard Nimoy voice.ogg

The below text was initially copied from a user talk page discussion prompted by this edit.

You removed from the article as "fails NFCC" content that, as of the moment, is uncontested public domain. I'm cornfused, as my granddad used to say. Enlighten me? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 18:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for any judgment errors I made. I didn't really see how the sample benefited the article, and am so used to seeing non-free audio samples (if any samples) used within articles that it struck me as not meeting the "contextual significance" requirement for non-free content. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that it doesn't meet the requirements for using non-free content, I have restored it because those requirements are irrelevant since the file in question appears to be free content. Pathore (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

'sokay. I was just wondering if I was missing something. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Licensing aside, how exactly does the sample benefit the article, though? Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Does it benefit the article? It appears to have been added shortly after Nimoy's death. Perhaps removing it could be part of the cleanup I suggested on the talk page a few months ago? But if it is removed, it should be removed because it is useless, not because it doesn't meet NFCC. Pathore (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I'd remove it as part of a cleanup. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I, too, see no benefit to the article. That having been said, should this discussion be transcluded to/continued at the article's talk page? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to post on talk page if contested, but I'd say just go ahead and remove it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I have copied this here to explain the previous edits and to seek a broader consensus whether the audio clip should be included in the article. Pathore (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it does benefit the article. Nimoy had a unique voice and cadence, having an easily accessible public domain audio clip of the man is a great way to convey that, no? Nesnad (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

KEEP. It gives the reader the experience of his voice. An audio sample is just as valid as a picture. RJ4 (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• How exactly does providing a voice sample or "experience" benefit an article, though? Readers tend to be looking for information (maybe sometimes official photos) much more often than they do for how someone's voice sounded. They can simply go to YouTube or something for hearing voices. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• I'm with SNUGGUMS. While he lent his voice to numerous projects, Nimoy was known primarily for acting, and specifically as Spock. This separates him from a voice performer like, say, Thurl Ravenscroft, whose article could use a sound file; or a singer like, say, Bianca Ryan, whose article has one. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• KEEP - It enhances the article. His voice is as much a part of him as any picture. Sure you could go to elsewhere to hear him, but that that could be said of pictures as well. I would like to see (well hear) clips like this for other actors and public speakers as well. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic ...

... and, therefore, my apologies, but for anyone who wants to use it, {{emoji|270D}} renders . LLaP. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Date formatting - minor edit request

Fourth paragraph, introduction:

The minor planet 4864 Nimoy was named after him on 2 June 2015.

"2 June" should be changed to "June 2", to be consistent with the rest of the article.

I also feel it, along with the mention of his Walk of Fame star, should be moved away from the introduction and integrated into another section, though I'm only specifically requesting the above.

72.200.151.13 (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I fixed the date formatting. I tend to agree with you on the mentions of the Walk of Fame and the minor planet in the lede but I'm not really sure how to tackle that. I'll leave this request open for now. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 17:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Already done with regards to the second part of the request. See this edit by Light show (talk · contribs) at 23:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC). Deactivating request now. Mz7 (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)