This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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:
References
... 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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Anyway, back to the subject ( ): Joseph Prasad, do you find my proposed wording agreeable? — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 23:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
*sigh* So, who will it be? — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 00:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The issues, everyone. Please? — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 03:40, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
... and, therefore, my apologies, but for anyone who wants to use it, {{emoji|270D}} renders . LLaP. — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 04:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Leonard Nimoy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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:
References
... 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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Anyway, back to the subject ( ): Joseph Prasad, do you find my proposed wording agreeable? — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 23:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
*sigh* So, who will it be? — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 00:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The issues, everyone. Please? — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 03:40, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
... and, therefore, my apologies, but for anyone who wants to use it, {{emoji|270D}} renders . LLaP. — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 04:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Leonard Nimoy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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)