Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:14, 9 March 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leonard Nimoy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving Leonard Nimoy was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 February 2015.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Photography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Star Trek Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as High-importance).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leonard Nimoy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Leonard Nemoy as a newscaster

I believe Mr. Nimoy worked as a newscaster for KYW(channel 3) in Philadelphia for a brief period during the early sixties.

Personal Life section needs to be cleaned up

There are currently a number of items in the "personal life" section which do not really pertain to his personal life; i.e., how the Vulcan neck pinch and mind meld came to be. They need to be moved someplace else, as they are not about his personal life. 12.31.187.178 (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanx for pointing it out, I have removed those sections. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the end of the article, the last external link has his last name spelled wrong: "Bruno Mars - The Lazy Song (ALTERNATE OFFICIAL VIDEO) featuring Nemoy" Please change to: "Bruno Mars - The Lazy Song (ALTERNATE OFFICIAL VIDEO) featuring Nimoy" Jk3wl (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Mlpearc (open channel) 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy Suggestion

You should add William Shatner's quote about his passing over Zachary Quinto's.. He knew him far better and they were close friends that lived through life together! Zachary Quinto is a child and recent acquaintance.. Has far less history.. Quote from those that knew him best over famous people he met in the past few years.. Better yet! Quote his family..

His grandaughter said.. "Hi all, as you all know, my Grandpa passed away this morning at 8:40 from end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. He was an extraordinary man, husband, grandfather, brother, actor, author-the list goes on- and friend. Thank you for the warm condolences. May you all LLAP. - Dani"

William Shatner said.. "I loved him like a brother. We will all miss his humor, his talent, and his capacity to love.

Please be respectful to the man and those that knew him best!

Reference:

William Shatner - https://twitter.com/WilliamShatner/status/571375716337643521

Grandaughter - https://twitter.com/TheRealNimoy/status/571373655793532928 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.105.26 (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace Text ""my heart is broken. i love you profoundly my dear friend. and i will miss you everyday. may flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.""

with

""My heart is broken. I love you profoundly my dear friend. And i will miss you everyday. May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.""

The second line was hot it was posted by Mr. Quinto. Capitalization was not used when posting it in the body of the article. Jjdiascro (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The quote is written as posted Mlpearc (open channel) 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTE specifically states that minor typographical errors should simply be corrected without comment where they do not alter the intended meaning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The quote is direct and exact. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the guideline supporting keeping it as written with (sic) attached to the quote: . Stop edit warring over this, people. Please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: It also specifically states and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced and that all we are trying to do here is to stay faithful to any quote. Mlpearc (open channel) 06:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You're misusing the intent of that statement, which is to ensure that quotes reflect what was actually stated. That guideline does not contradict what is also stated about simply correcting mundane errors. If there is a significant error in the original statement, use or the template to show that the error was not made by Misplaced Pages. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Quinto Quote

Stop edit warring and discuss it here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, it's already being discussed. Look above in the last protected edit request sections ^^^ You were wrong to revert back AND claim there was no discussion. My changes were based on the discussion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The formatting is apparently the issue and was apparently never resolved, not the quote itself. Resolve that please. Regardless of "correctness", many users have crossed the bright line of 3RR and it needs to stop. Agreeing with Pathore, I've removed the quote until consensus on its format can be reached. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been resolved per policy. The issue for removal was no reliable source. That was taken care of with my last edit (you know, the one you reverted without looking into what was being discussed?). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There's clearly a dispute about policy. If I see a revert again, I'm going to AN3. This is ridiculous. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Threats and ultimatums: not a big fan. Again, Pathore's quibble was with it not being sourced appropriately. I took care of that (then you reverted). Prior to that, the quibble was with spelling. That's already answered per the linked policy (see above). Can't really see what the issue is with the content at this point. Policy satisfied on both counts. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir: Just for the record, my reinsertion of the content was based on this discussion . I found a secondary reliable source, corrected the content for complete accuracy. You were wrong to revert in the first place. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry for the threat/ultimatum, but this is really out of hand between you and ATinySliver and I was admittedly extra annoyed to see the edits continue after I messaged you both about them. You are both fine editors and my encounters with you Winkelvi have been constructive and level-headed. But I felt someone needed to step into this edit war and try to mediate. This seems too minor for DRN. I honestly am not an expert on quotation policy, but hoped you two could work it out here if I created the space to do so. The quote is not vital to the article so its absence or malformation will not be a huge detriment for the time being. If I can help in another way, please let me know. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll add that I may have been mistaken to remove the quote, but honestly see that as the best option while it's being discussed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I sincerely appreciate your comments here and accept your explanation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the quote for two reasons:

1. There was an ongoing edit war over rendering it in mixed case versus rendering it in the original all lowercase and adding .
2. It was cited to InstaGram, not to a secondary source.

I've also reverted one restoration of almost the exact text I removed, with the same citation. Continuing the edit war sneakily does not fly. The quote needs to be discussed here, on the talk page, where we can find a secondary source to cite it to and decide whether we will quote from a source uses standard capitalization or all lowercase. Either way, our quote can exactly match the secondary source we will cite for it. Pathore (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're accusing me of edit warring "sneakily"? Seriously? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No, your part in the edit war has been blunt and obvious from the edit summaries. Thank you for using clear edit summaries. Pathore (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation fixed; thanks for the heads-up. —ATinySliver/ 06:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the quote from the article, move it to the subsection below and discuss. The edit war has been over the format of the quote. Having either version in the article right now will only fan the flames. Misplaced Pages has no deadline, so we can take a few days to cool off, think logically, and talk this out. Pathore (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

MOSQUOTE 8.1 and 8.2, and Quotations#Formatting graf 3. All these well-established guidelines make abundantly clear that minor corrections for style, even within exact quotations, are allowed if not preferred. —ATinySliver/ 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Should not include a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE WP:SOCIALMEDIA quote, especially one from Instagram. If a tweet or something similar has been reported in a notable reliable secondary-source news media, that's one thing, but wiki should not be adding cherry-picked primary-source personal social media quotes from image-sharing apps. Softlavender (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct; fixed. —ATinySliver/ 06:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Choosing a source for the Quinto quote

Let's gather secondary sources and tally how the reliable sources are rendering the quote here. Pathore (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Pathore, your inclusion in the chart of "quotes" from sources that merely embed the Instgram or Tweet is non-helpful and misleading, to my mind. We need to use secondary sources that quote, as we do in Misplaced Pages, unless we are going to embed the Instagram or Tweet. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The TIME piece doesn't merely reproduce an image. While they do have the image, I copied and pasted the text out of the Web page. I did not retype it. It is text in the source. A block quote indicated by formatting rather than by quotation marks is still a quote. Pathore (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It is an embedding of the Instagram post. It is not a quote in the body text. TIME is therefore not quoting the statement as we do in Misplaced Pages. Softlavender (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Much as I would like to be done with this, an out-of-line block quote is still a quote. If reliable sources end up evenly split on which form of the quote to use, then we can use this distinction of the way in which sources use it as a tie-breaker. Pathore (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've started a table, please add entries: Pathore (talk)

References

1. Dockterman, Eliana (February 27, 2015). "This Is How the New Spock Said Goodbye To the Old Spock". TIME. Retrieved February 27, 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
2. McMillan, Graeme (27 February 2015). "How the Internet Is Remembering the Legendary Leonard Nimoy". Wired.com. Wired. Retrieved 28 February 2015.

I hope this does not continue an argument but, as I note above, in an ongoing attempt to improve the encyclopedia—assertions to the contrary notwithstanding—I'm inclined to follow guidelines. —ATinySliver/ 06:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the reliable source I found (and included when I tried to do the right thing according to discussion(s) taking place): . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Due to the fact that the quote is from Instagram and accompanies a photo, TIME and US Magazine are rendering the entire Instagram or Twitter post image (via embedding) rather than actually quoting it. However the noteworthy RS that I currently see actually quoting (as we are in Misplaced Pages) it are using corrected capitalization: Wired, Associated Press . Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Would be acceptable to all parties to quote Wired or other RS's quote of Quinto? This shifts the refactoring of the original on to the secondary sources, allows for readability concerns, etc. To me (again, as not an expert on quotation policy) it would seem preferable to use the secondary sources just on the basis of WP:SECONDARY. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: That is exactly what I am asking. Pathore (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer yes for me, because the sources that use the original incorrect orthography are not quoting at all but merely reproducing an image. Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, they are both reproducing the image and quoting the text. It isn't a screenshot. Pathore (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a screenshot (that's not how media reproduces Tweets and Instagrams), but it's an exact reproduction of the Instagram or Tweet, text and all, via embedding . They are not quoting the statement in the body text of the article. Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

With respect to everyone involved, I must repeat my assertion that the argument is moot. The overrriding factor is not what Mr. Quinto actually typed; rather, Wiki guidelines—specifically, MOSQUOTE 8.1 and 8.2, and Quotations#Formatting graf 3. —ATinySliver/ 07:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Quote formatting, assuming adequate source is found

Can you two kindly discuss the formatting disagreement here? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Leave it as it was written in social media (Twitter, in this case - also supported by secondary reliable source) per . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Some sources are keeping it as originally written, while others are putting it in standard capitalization. Either way, we would be "quoting the quote" from a secondary source. Which means that we will need to decide which secondary source we follow, and copy-and-paste their form of the quote. Pathore (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the noteworthy RS that I currently see actually quoting (as we are in Misplaced Pages) it are using corrected capitalization: Wired, Associated Press . The RS that are merely reproducing the image (via embedding) of the Instagram or Twitter post are not quoting it. Since we need to use secondary sources rather than primary, and since we are quoting rather than reproducing an image, we should follow the AP and Wired, to my mind. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've seen noteworthy RSs quoting the original version (provided a link to one already). Personally, I don't see the harm in keeping it as it was written, especially since there is policy that supports keeping it as written (provided a link to that already, too). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Please add them to the table. Pathore (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually think we need to do the table, even though it was kind of you to set one up. There are no sources that actually quote the statement with non-standard orthography, so I don't personally see any conflict or disagreement right now about that fact. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Then the table will be full of entries with standard orthography, which will help to settle the matter. Pathore (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of Quotations#formatting to argue against the minor fixes ignores the guideline's third paragraph, which reads in part, "Exceptions are trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning; these may be silently corrected or may be retained and marked with " "—using the template {{sic}}—to indicate that the error is in the original source." (Emphasis mine.) The point: if either is considered correct, to revert repeatedly a change designed to mirror manuals of style, from Chicago to AP to Misplaced Pages, is and was wrong. —ATinySliver/ 07:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It still takes two (or many, many, more) to have a lame edit war. Will you move the current form of the quote from the article into the above table or should I do it? Pathore (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Feel free. If I'm honest, I see no need per Wiki's guidelines, as I've mentioned; that having been said, since any legitimate consensus takes two (or many, many more), I remind myself and anyone else that we are supposed to be participants therein. —ATinySliver/ 07:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It may not be much, but it's still a step towards turning an edit war over differing policy interpretations into consensus. Pathore (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources that actually quote Quinto rather than reproducing an image

1. Wired
2. Associated Press

Proposal

Proposal: Use a reliable secondary source that quotes the statement in body text (such as Wired or Associated Press) rather than embedding the Instagram or Twitter post, and follow their orthography. Softlavender (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Softlavender (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It appears that some sources both reproduce the image and quote the text with nonstandard orthography. I was hoping that this would not be the case. Pathore (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the wording of the proposal for clarification. The ability to copy and paste from the media's exact reproduction of the Instagram post or Tweet is because the entire exact Instagram post or Tweet is embedded. It does not mean it is a textual quote in the body text of an article. Softlavender (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I consider embedding (not unlike transclusion) to be a form of quotation. If it is set apart by layout and brought in word-for-word, then it is a block quote. Pathore (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as Pathore. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Collect reliable secondary sources and follow the majority of the reliable sources. Pathore (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Pathore (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn as needless process. Pathore (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, as some people are getting confused by some exact reproductions (embedding) of the Instagram post or Tweet as opposed to actual quotations in body text. Misplaced Pages should use the latter. Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Now that we have plenty of secondary sources on this fact, best to use those, but we could also cite the link itself, along with a couple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal per WP:OVERQUOTE

Write our own prose, such as:

Zachary Quinto, who portrayed the younger Spock character in films Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, wrote, "my heart is broken" and that he loved Nimoy "profoundly".

• Support as nominator. —ATinySliver/ 08:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Three very short quotes in one paragraph is not WP:OVERQUOTE. In my view, best to quote exactly here. Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as Softlavender. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

WP:MOS 8.1 states, in pertinent part:

• "However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment ..."

WP:MOS 8.2 states, in pertinent part:

• "Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Misplaced Pages's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure the meaning of the text; this practice is universal among publishers."

WP:Quotations#Formatting states, in pertinent part:

• "Exceptions are trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning; these may be silently corrected ..."

Therefore, restore, with any of the secondary sources cited above:

Zachary Quinto, who portrayed the younger Spock character in films Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, wrote, "My heart is broken. I love you profoundly my dear friend. And I will miss you every day."

• Support and withdraw previous proposal as nom. —ATinySliver/ 19:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Of the three bits of policy cited, only MOS 8.2 could be applicable: the all-lowercase form of the quote was clearly the author's intent (even if only out of laziness) and is neither a spelling nor a typographical error. Can you point to existing general consensus for capitalizing letters in an all-lowercase quote with multiple sentences quoted ? This last detail seems to have been the source of the disagreement that led to the edit war. Pathore (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not that I've been able to find to date, but I'm still looking. Nevertheless, I think "Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Misplaced Pages's conventions" speaks for itself. (Edit: meantime, I completely forgot to include the preceding sentence, which reads, "A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting ." More on point, bullet number one under this guideline reads, "Changing capitalization so that sentences begin with capital letters ... ") —ATinySliver/ 03:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It then continues with "... and do not have unnecessary capitals in the middle", giving an example ("the oft-repeated maxim 'a penny saved is a penny earned'") of embedding a full sentence into another sentence as a quote. That's why I'm asking about the case where multiple sentences are quoted. Pathore (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If I find any, I'll post here. Meantime, I don't believe the sentence parts are mutually reliant. —ATinySliver/ 04:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There's also a compromise option: the CS1 templates allow embedding a quote into the template call. We could normalize the orthography in the actual article text, but have the original all-lowercase text in the citation while complaining about the illiteracy encouraged by modern social media here on the talk page. Pathore (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Trying to decide whether to support that or laugh my ass off. #@&% it, I'll do both. (That's actually a stunningly good idea ...) —ATinySliver/ 05:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yet Another Proposal

Restore this text, which matches the above proposal, with multiple bundled citations (feel free to add more secondary sources) and the exact original text in the citation to the primary source:

Zachary Quinto, who portrayed the younger Spock character in films Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, wrote, "My heart is broken. I love you profoundly my dear friend. And I will miss you every day."

References

1. Quinto, Zachary (February 27, 2015). "zacharyquinto – February 27, 2015". Retrieved February 27, 2015. my heart is broken. i love you profoundly my dear friend. and i will miss you everyday. may flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.
   Dockterman, Eliana (February 27, 2015). "This Is How the New Spock Said Goodbye To the Old Spock". TIME. Retrieved February 27, 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
   McMillan, Graeme (February 27, 2015). "How the Internet Is Remembering the Legendary Leonard Nimoy". Wired.com. Wired. Retrieved February 28, 2015.
   

• Support as nominator. Pathore (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. An excellent compromise. —ATinySliver/ 07:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support, good idea. — Cirt (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request: Additional Credit in Television Roles

He was the host of a television show in the 80's called "Standby: Lights, Camera, Action"; that's missing from his credits in the television table. The show ran from 1982-1987; the article for the series is at Standby: Lights, Camera, Action. Could someone add this? I know it isn't as big as his other works, but it's definitely big enough to incorporate here. Thanks! SkittishSloth (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, to make this edit today, it would have to be sourced, as the article you point to has none. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Tinnitus

It is wrongly stated that tinnitus "is a symptom of hearing loss". However, this is not always the case (e.g., I've had tinnitus for 30+ years with no ancillary hearing loss). In Nimoy's case, this might have been true (A); or the author might have added the comment to illustrate what tinnitus is (B). I suggest to edit this into something along the following lines:

if A): "along with progressive hearing loss."

if B): either ("which frequently correlates with hearing loss"), or simply a link to wiki's own page (https://en.wikipedia.org/Tinnitus). I prefer the link as the other sounds dull: if it did in his case, say so; if it didn't, it's an unnecessary statement.

Not a big issue, but as wiki is so authoritative these days...

gnometorule (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed as trivia, and poorly referenced trivia, at that, written in such a manner to suggest WP:SYNTH was used to draw a conclusion. Sorry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Stage

We could use a section on his stage work. He made a great deal of appearances in live theatre beginning around 1948.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

A sub section in the infobox states "Military Career". Two years in the Army during wartime does not equate a military career. While his service is laudable, two years of enlisted service really isn't worthy of such notice in the infobox. It should be removed, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's reliably sourced, I don't see a big problem with including it in there. Illegitimate Barrister 07:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that 18 months in the U.S. Army Reserves during the Korean War, in which he never left U.S. soil, does not merit inclusion in the infobox, as it is not at all noteworthy for this particular person. It is mentioned briefly in the body text, which is all it merits, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Death and illness should be a different section and it should look like this

In February 2014, Nimoy revealed that he had been diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). On February 19, 2015, Nimoy was taken to UCLA Medical Center for chest pain and had been in and out of hospitals for the "past several months."

Nimoy died on February 27, 2015 at the age of 83 in his Bel Air home from complications of COPD. A few days before his death, Nimoy shared some of his poetry on social media website Twitter: "A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP".

Shatner said of his friend, "I loved him like a brother We will all miss his humor, his talent, and his capacity to love." Zachary Quinto, who portrayed the younger "Spock" character in films Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, commented on Nimoy's death: "my heart is broken. i love you profoundly my dear friend. and i will miss you everyday. " George Takei stated, "The word extraordinary is often overused, but I think it's really appropriate for Leonard. He was an extraordinarily talented man, but he was also a very decent human being."

In a statement, U.S. President Barack Obama said he “loved” the Spock character, and paid tribute to Nimoy, “a lifelong lover of the arts and humanities, a supporter of the sciences, generous with his talent and his time."

References

1. France, Lisa Respers (February 24, 2015). "Internet to Leonard Nimoy: Live long and prosper". CNN. Retrieved February 27, 2015.
2. Heffernan, Virginia (February 27, 2015). "Leonard Nimoy, Spock of 'Star Trek,' Dies at 83". New York Times. Retrieved February 27, 2015.
3. "Leonard Nimoy Dies at the age of 83". Renegade Cinema. February 27, 2015. Retrieved February 27, 2015. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
4. "Leonard Nimoy, Spock of 'Star Trek,' dead at 83". Fox News. February 27, 2015. Retrieved February 27, 2015.
5. Quinto, Zachary (February 27, 2015). "zacharyquinto - February 27, 2015". Instagram. instragram.com. Retrieved February 27, 2015. My heart is broken. I love you profoundly my dear friend. And i will miss you everyday. May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.
6. http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/6770654 William Shatner, George Takei Pay Tribute to Leonard Nimoy
7. "Statement by the President On the Passing of Leonard Nimoy". whitehouse.gov. February 27, 2015. Retrieved February 27, 2015.

No, it shouldn't be a separate section as doing so is in opposition to WP:MOS; neither his death nor illness were notable. A quote from the current president about the passing of a celebrity is not necessarily notable, either. Putting the quote in is overkill and borderline WP:RECENTISM -- after Obama is no longer president, no one will care what he thought about Nimoy's death; the quote is not really notable or pertinent to Nimoy's career, and therefore, not encyclopedia-worthy. Statements from his co-stars are pertinent and have been appropriately included. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:I beg to differ. Obama's quote was meant very personally and not the sort of boilerplate that presidents usually say when celebrities die. Consider also that Obama's personal cool has been compared to Spock as well. I think it's relevant; I think people will care and in any event to suggest that people won't care what he said is shortsighted crystal ball gazing. If people really don't care, we can always take it out in three years. Daniel Case (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but totally disagree. It's not pertinent to Nimoy's career. What you are saying is maybe pertinent to Obama's career. If he's been compared to Spock, put it in Obama's article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Your logic is uncertain where this issue of pertinence is concerned . Could you please explain your position in greater detail? You seem to be the sort of person who is used to having people be convinced of a position because you're the one saying it; I humbly suggest that you need to go further here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I consider your logic about not including a quote from President Obama to be deeply troubling and problematic. Just because Pres. Obama's term runs out in two years seems like an extremely petty reason to not include a quote from a sitting President. I implore you to see what was done to Roger Ebert's biography, as just one example among many, to see how a death and illness section can be done as a separate section and also include a quote from a sitting US president. 01:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireflyfanboy (talk • contribs)

Not all Misplaced Pages articles are written according to MOS guidelines, which is a pity. No reason to muddy this article up with non-MOS inclusions and stylings. Further, not everything that is found on the internet, verifiable through a reliable source, or uttered by a sitting president needs to be included in Misplaced Pages articles. If Obama and Nimoy had been close friends or involved in each others' lives professionally, I can see the appropriateness of including the quote. Including it would essentially equate article bloat and really isn't germane or relevant to Nimoy's life and this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you please site the specific issue in MOS in regards to how you believe deaths of notable people are supposed to depicted? I tried to find it specific rules on how to cover a death of a person in a biography and could not find any.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've merged "Death" with "Personal life and final years" simply because, reading the article, I couldn't find a good place to put the section break. He died from COPD, and that really is part of "final years", although I could support separating "Personal life" and "Final years and death" sections, if the latter is suitably expanded. Pathore (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Illness and death subsections are perfectly normal and acceptable for biography articles. It is not clear why Winkelvi is citing the MOS on this point when it doesn't say anything against such a section. Perhaps Winkelvi will take a moment to review our best GA and FA biographies, as the vast majority contain illness and death subsections. Again, I don't see where the MOS comes into this. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree strongly with this comment by Viriditas, above. These sects are common for high quality articles on this site. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the President's quote or the inclusion of the death section, and the Ebert article is a good model (IMO), if there's no MOS guideline then it reverts back to WP:CONSENSUS, no matter who the subject is. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I merged those sections because I couldn't find a place for a section break that could fit both "Personal life and final years" and "Death". I do see a place to insert a "Final years and death" section heading, but that produces a very short section that would be in need of expansion. I'll split the sections again if there is consensus to do so, and someone steps up to expand the new "Final years and death" section. Pathore (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Ebert article isn't a good model for the Nimoy article in regard to their deaths. The reason why is because Ebert struggled with cancer for years and finally succumbed to it. That was notable. Nimoy died essentially of old age and complications from a non-fatal condition he was diagnosed with a couple of weeks ago. That's not notable, it's just dying. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: In addition to your continued evasiveness and failure to cite the section of the MOS that you believe to be relevant to your argument, you are here factually incorrect in a manner that calls into further question your ability to make credible arguments for your position. The quoted matter at the top of this section states clearly and unambiguously that Nimoy was diagnosed with COPD a year ago, not two weeks as you seem to believe. Please adjust and revise your argument appropriately, up to and including the point of withdrawing it if necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to discuss, then discuss without accusations -- I'm not being evasive in the least nor am I challenged in the ability to make credible arguments. The truth is I misread the date of diagnosis as February of this year -- my old brain is still having trouble seeing 2014 as not being this year and remembering that we are in 2015. It's as simple as that. Even so, Nimoy's death still isn't overly remarkable. COPD is a difficult condition to live with, but it's not cancer, it's not Parkinson's, it's not unmanageable, and it isn't considered terminal. He was 83 and had a recent heart attack. And please, Daniel Case, adjust your attitude toward me. I'm just trying to keep the article from bloat, trivia, hyperbole, fan worship, and the usual ridiculousness that typically follows when a celebrity dies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: OK, but if you want to keep the article free from bloat, just say so rather than saying you're just following policy if there isn't any on the subject in question. I agree with you that it happens, and while I think consensus has come out decidedly against you on the Obama quote I would agree that if, say, David Cameron or some other world leader decided they had to say something it would not be relevant just because Obama's quote had been included. Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"I think consensus has come out decidedly against you on the Obama quote" Excuse me, Daniel Case? I hope that was just a poor choice of words, an error. If other editors here are not mature enough to comment with "Support" or "Oppose" for reasons that are in the interest of the article rather than in opposition to an editor (in this case -- as you indicated -- against me specifically), then they shouldn't be commenting at all. Coming from an administrator, saying (or admitting) editors are making decisions based on the desire to oppose an editor is not just disappointing, it's troubling, to say the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Consensus can be gauged by more than just "Support" and "Oppose" !votes. The editors above have not only questioned your stated rationale for your decisions (leading to your hedged admission to me that there was never any explicit policy basis for them), they have said they have no problem with having a separate death section (as we do in countless other articles). And Mlpearc has also agreed with me that including Obama's quote isn't a problem; I suspect Cirt, Fireflyfanboy and Viriditas might agree as well if they weighed in.

I took the time to read your userpage and what you have to say about yourself, so I am trying to be a bit more understanding and patient than I might otherwise be, but you are beginning to seem to have problems assuming good faith here. Maybe the other editors (and, I admit, sometimes myself) have been a bit too confrontational in their responses. But they've got some points. Yet you seem to be implying that, for them, it's all about you. Calm down.

And please, let's not bring it into the conversation that I'm an administrator unless I did it somehow. To me that's equally as wrong as an admin threatening to use their admin tools in a discussion. Believe it or not, quite a few of us are content to continue to create and improve articles. And it makes us happier when other editors don't treat us any differently because of that. Again, you're starting to seem paranoid. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There are so many baseless, ridiculous accusations and finger-pointing in your response I'm not even going to take the time to respond (other than what I've just written). AGF? Yes, please do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: At least have the decency to pick up your toys and put them away before you leave. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Just stop it, Daniel Case. Please. If you have a beef with me, at least be decent enough (and adult enough) to deal with it as someone with your Misplaced Pages "stature" should. Dragging this on by responding days later with more insults is highly inappropriate. This is a side discussion that has now just become disruptive, thanks to your poor choice to continue it. Whatever possibly AGF message you might have been trying to convey has now been lost in all of the static coming from you. Get over it, move on, and drop the stick. Gawd. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:(edit conflict) Your responses prior to the one that indirectly made a personal attack on me by reducing some gently-phrased, constructively-meant criticism to "baseless, ridiculous accusations", without bothering to go into detail as to why at least had the dignity to use ECHO to alert me. This one didn't (I have other things to do around here, so I just let this go for a while in the apparently-naïve belief that you were doing so as well. Instead I checked back and found that you'd decided to get in the last word (and, speaking for my back, I do mean "in").

Since the argument that Obama's quote should be included seems to have carried the day, I will concede that there is no further point in having this discussion, although given the outcome I have to wonder who WP:STICK really applies to here. I will concede also that this has stopped being an argument about the content and has metastasized into an argument about the argument, which we should all try to avoid.

So I will handle this as you suggest. I propose that we both agree to put this under one of those collapsible bars so no one has to read it if they don't want to and return to it no more. Agree? Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The short length of a separate "Final years and death" section as the article currently stands is exactly why I've merged those sections. Look at the article; see those two screenshots of memorial statements? The text between them is the entire "Final years and death" section. Pathore (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I made "illness a death" a subsection within the "personal life" section. Is this okay, @Pathore? Fireflyfanboy (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've bumped it up one level in the section hierarchy, since Nimoy's death affects more than just his personal life. While the section is somewhat short and could do with expansion, having a logical outline structure does require it be a separate section. Also, the "mentions" system in MediaWiki is not like Twitter, @Pathore is just text; you need a link to a user page, like the {{u}} template makes, like Fireflyfanboy in the same edit as your signature. Pathore (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Diagnosis story, 7 February. 2014. Also the source for giving up cigarettes 30 years prior. —ATinySliver/ 03:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving the obituary to main page

After all, as an iconic image on pop culture in XX and XXI centuries, he deserves this more than many of the trivia in that session. And NOT. I'm not a trekker.

Ulysses Fiuza (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a memorial site. His obituary as content is inappropriate and against guidelines. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Respect for actor and character he breathed life into.

Date of death  : As well as the date of death for Leonard Nimoy I would ask On behalf of Fans that a date of death for Mr. Spock be included as Stardate 68623.5 based on TrekGuide.com Stardate generator Unless there is a more acceptable Star date. Its only ... logical.

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.48 (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a memorial or fan site. The "Stardate" would be inappropriate, unencyclopedic, and against WP:MOS guidelines. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to include the data under the Spock entry of your Misplaced Pages?

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.48 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, still not acceptable. It would be trivia, rather than encyclopedic content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Cute, but not appropriate. Seems like you're looking for en.memory-alpha.org. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Two comments about this request. First: TrekGuide is a fan website, so that disqualifies it from most considerations right there. Second, we do not know the "death date" of the fictional character Spock. This has not been established in any official media (film or novel). Certainly they will not be killing off the Zach Quinto version of the character in the next film (safe bet anyway) and while Abrams and his writers may decide to establish "Old Spock" as being deceased in the next film, this has not happened yet so to say otherwise violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. They could go either way; in the Doctor Who franchise the character of Sarah Jane Smith is officially still alive despite the death of actress Lis Sladen, whereas they chose to establish the death of another long-running character, The Brigadier, following the death of actor Nicholas Courtney. Even Memory Alpha wouldn't allow the character's "death" to be noted until Paramount does the honours. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by the White House

This passage:

In a statement, President Barack Obama said he “loved” the Spock character, and paid tribute to Nimoy, “a lifelong lover of the arts and humanities, a supporter of the sciences, generous with his talent and his time. … Michelle and I join his family, friends, and countless fans who miss him so dearly today." (including citation)

and its variants have been removed repeatedly by an editor who says the "article is not be a memorial or collection of statements after death". I argue that a statement by a president of the United States is in and of itself notable, expressing the widespread admiration held for this man. I request comments toward a consensus, please. —ATinySliver/ 01:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should leave out all such memorial statements. Famous person dies; famous person remarks. Newsworthy perhaps, but not encyclopedic. Will anyone care about such remarks in 100 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)

A statement regarding a celebrity's death isn't notable or appropriate to include in a Misplaced Pages article just because a president issued it. Misplaced Pages articles aren't meant to be a collection of quotes and statements by people quoted by the press. Nimoy's death wasn't particularly notable. People are sad Nimoy died, that's expected, but his death is hardly a shock or surprise at his age. It's not the same as if it were something catastrophic that caused his death, or if it had been the result of a notable act of violence, or a suicide (such as Robin Williams). Obama wasn't involved in Nimoy's career, there's nothing indicating they were close friends. Presidents issue statements all the time and we are not obligated include those statements every time they say something about someone with celebrity status. Quotes from Shatner, Takei, and anyone else who starred beside him (within reason) on Star Trek or in the Star Trek films are appropriate. It's simply unnecessary article bloat (bordering on trivia) to include Obama's statement. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The statement by the U.S. President is historic and will be recorded and remembered in 100 years. It should be referenced in this article. — Cirt (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur with @Cirt. Look at the Robin Williams article for how a Presidential statement has been incorporated into a larger list of tributes rather seamlessly.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Williams died suddenly at his own hand and his death was remarkable and extraordinary. People were shocked by his death. Nimoy died at age 83 and while many are sad and nostalgic because of his death, I doubt if many are shocked an 83 year old man with health issues has died. No comparison. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Upon fixing the search parameters and adjusting for repeats, there are approximately 95 statements by President Obama on the passing of whomever over the six years covered by the press office website. How many were actors? Exactly four: Harold Ramis, Andy Griffith, Robin Williams and Leonard Nimoy. —ATinySliver/ 05:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This should be used as the reasoning for including the Obama quote in the article. Simple as that. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal re Statement by White House

The comments appear to be leaning slightly toward restoration, but there is no clear consensus. Therefore, per my research and the comments herein, I propose restoring, with appropriate citation:

In a statement, President Barack Obama said he “loved” the Spock character, and paid tribute to Nimoy, “a lifelong lover of the arts and humanities, a supporter of the sciences, generous with his talent and his time. … Michelle and I join his family, friends, and countless fans who miss him so dearly today."

• Support as nom. —ATinySliver/ 19:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Notation is made at the bottom of the article space in regard to the statement; comments from a president don't outweigh the quotations already noted. An article is not to become a WP:QUOTEFARM or tribute page to a deceased article subject. Comments from Nimoy's co-stars are more prominent and relevant in nature. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support- the explanation that there have been only 4 actors honored in such a way makes me think that this is worth listing. I believe it is @Winkelvi's personal biases that are getting in the way of this edit, this user is literally the only person who has had a problem with listing the President's quote. It is ludicrous to delete a quote from a sitting US President, given its rarity when applied to actors, simply because "he won't be president in 2 years," which is an explanation I have seen applied multiple times by @Winkelvi. Comments from Presidents don't outweigh other quotations, but it should be included as a quote along with Shatner, Quinto, etc. Making a link to it simply is not good enough. I point again to the Roger Ebert article to show how to include a quote from President in a larger "illness and death" section.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support - This isn't the usual White House boilerplate on the passing of a notable celebrity. I'm reminded of Jimmy Carter's rewording of the initial White House statement on the passing of Elvis Presley -Leonard Nimoy's influence in pop culture, space science and engineering merits that encomium, and as such it's certainly suitable for inclusion in his Misplaced Pages article. kencf0618 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Unless he knew him well personally, and said something about him beyond the character he played, his comments have no more significance than any other fan. --Light show (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Historic, educational, and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support Winkelvi makes a good point, however we usually keep these kinds of statement in the biographical articles because they provide a special look. There are many featured articles where the statement of White House has been included. VandVictory (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed statement is more about President Obama’s feelings about Nimoy, rather than about Nimoy. In one of the comments above, kencf0618 referred to quotes by President Carter that appeared in the Misplaced Pages article Elvis Presley. I looked at those quotes for guidance and noticed that they were about Presley, rather than about Carter’s feelings about Presley, unlike the present proposal. Similarly, Fireflyfanboy noted the President Obama quote in the Misplaced Pages article Roger Ebert. That quote is about Ebert, rather than Obama's feelings about Ebert, also unlike the present proposal. WV (Winkelvi) correctly noted that there is currently mention of the Obama statement about Nimoy with a link at the bottom of the Misplaced Pages article about Nimoy. So the point that Nimoy was sufficiently significant to prompt a comment from a President is not lost. For those with an interest in putting that point in the main text, I would suggest using for guidance the third paragraph of the section Death in the Misplaced Pages article about Roger Ebert. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - (quoted version, not the summary version) As I mentioned in a section above, I don't see a problem with Obama’s statement, yes he does mention his admiration for Spock but, the remaining statement is directed at Nimoy. I still think the Ebert and now after looking at the Williams page, both are good models for inclusion here. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

For reference, here's the statement from the Robin Williams article,

"U.S. President Barack Obama said of Williams: 'He was one of a kind. He arrived in our lives as an alien – but he ended up touching every element of the human spirit.' "

and the one from the Roger Ebert article,

"U.S. President Barack Obama wrote, 'Roger was the movies ... the unique power of the movies to take us somewhere magical ... The movies won't be the same without Roger'."

A statement regarding Nimoy that is more in the style of these above two statements could be obtained by making the following changes in the current proposal,

"In a statement, President Barack Obama said he “loved” the Spock character, and paid tribute to Nimoy, 'a lifelong lover of the arts and humanities, a supporter of the sciences, generous with his talent and his time. … Michelle and I join his family, friends, and countless fans who miss him so dearly today.' "

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I love this new phrasing, and suggest we apply it ASAP considering that we have appeared to reach a consensus.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

NASA and White House images are noteworthy and relevant

1. These above two images were removed from the article. They should be included in the article in the Tributes section or section on his death.
2. It is noteworthy that on the same day the President of the United States and NASA Administrator both commented upon the life of Leonard Nimoy.
3. Both images are products of the United States Federal Government, and thus public domain licensed.
4. Please include these images in the article.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. Further, just because someone gives a statement on an actor's death, that doesn't mean it merits inclusion. Moreover, we aren't to overload articles with quotes. Nimoy was well known and well-liked, there are going to be people saying things about him over the next day or two. We don't devote an inordinate amount of space to those comments, no matter who the statements are made by. And let's not forget, while a NASA quote is cool, Nimoy never actually ventured "where no man has gone before". He didn't step on the moon, an imaginary planet called Vulcan, nor did he ever go into space. Yes, it's cool someone from NASA made a statement about his death, but it's not necessary, encyclopedic content. And sorry, but in 100 years, no one is going to give a crap. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

1. It's indeed encyclopedic.
2. In 100 years, yes, it will be historic that both the NASA Administrator and the President of the United States commented upon his death. — Cirt (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A search of the White House Press Office web page shows 114 statements on the passing of someone over a six-year period, an average of 19 per year. As I type this, Nimoy is top-three-or-better trending at Twitter and Facebook, while a Google News search shows nearly 2,700 articles (no doubt of various degrees of reliability and notability). Any suggestion that his passing isn't particularly notable is ludicrous and stunningly tone-deaf. —ATinySliver/

1. I'm sorry but I just don't see how it's not appropriate here.
2. How many people historically, over the last 100 years, had statements from both the NASA Administrator and the President of the United States ??? — Cirt (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The tone-deafness is actually coming from you, Sliver (this is not new for you). I didn't say his life was not notable, I said his death isn't particularly notable. He was 83 and died from something many elderly people have and eventually die from: complications of COPD. He didn't have cancer, he didn't die violently, he didn't die in a shocking manner, he didn't suffer from Parkinson's, etc. His death isn't notable, he was. Regardless, we still don't clutter up articles with a bunch of "tributes", we pick and choose. Barack Obama made a statement about his death. So what? As you stated, he's commented about a number of people's deaths. How many deaths of celebrities were commented on by previous presidents? Probably most in the latter-20th century. How many of those comments are remembered or cared about today? Very, very (VERY) few (if any). A president commenting about the death of a celebrity isn't noteworthy, it's newsworthy. Misplaced Pages isn't a newspaper. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A president commenting about the death of a celebrity is both newsworthy and noteworthy. How often in history in the past 100 years have both the NASA Administrator and the President of the United States made such statements about a person's death? — Cirt (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the statements themselves are not notable. Only the people are. And I agree with WV that the death was not notable. Again, the person was. (and Leonard Nimoy and Barack Obama both already have articles.) The images you want to include inherit all their notability from the people making them or to whom they are devoted; but neither are actually notable in and of themselves. Notice how not everything Obama has ever said is on some page simply because he was the one to say it. moluɐɯ 03:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Cirt: Both NASA and the White House in the same day -- is that part of the Misplaced Pages threshold of inclusion? (you keep bringing it up as if it is). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"his is not new for "? That is a personal attack; I was offering my assessment of an action where you engage in argumentum ad hominem. Meantime, argumentum is the operative word here: I requested comments in an effort to build a consensus, whereas you find yourself compelled to argue with every single one of them. Based on these actions and others, I believe I am not out of line to suggest that you have no interest in a consensus—any consensus. —ATinySliver/ 03:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I do? Really? —ATinySliver/ 03:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe that was directed at Cirt above you. He probably misplaced his statement in all these edit conflicts. I'm probably edit conflicting him or will be edit conflicted myself. But also, I'm not fully advised on either one of you guys's activities, but that didn't really seem like a personal attack, and your reaction to it was poor and itself a personal attack. Stop trying to create a red herring argument and try to take things more rationally. If you're going to point out a fatal flaw, don't be a hypocrite when you do it. moluɐɯ 03:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Window, meet WP:AGF—neither red herring nor hypocritical. —ATinySliver/ 03:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If either or both statements are worth including at all, they're worth including as text. Including them in images, particularly images that are screenshots of websites, doesn't make any sense to me. —Cryptic 03:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree; the images add nothing but overkill, IMO. —ATinySliver/ 03:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Include them as text, then. — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

But we have the full texts over at Wikisource. The images are relevant there as sources for the text. (Side note: why are the screenshots JPEG when they should be PNG?) Perhaps we should replace the screenshots with the links to Wikisource? Pathore (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done, changed to Wikisource links, per above suggestion by Pathore. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: So you're saying we need the Wikisource boxes posted in two different sections ? Mlpearc (open channel) 04:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I removed those again -- the problem was you deleted content that shouldn't have been deleted.

Thank you for catching that, my error. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It happens! :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Tobacco smoking

For some reason, I cannot find any mention of Nimoy's past tobacco smoking habit in the current article and its correlation with his COPD. Also, several of the sources say that Nimoy quit three decades ago, but I wonder how accurate this is, as I seem to recall him smoking quite recently. Was it on Fringe where I saw him smoking in character? I can't recall. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Nimoy himself made the statements you reference, recently, on Twitter. And this was then reported in numerous secondary sources that should be easy to find. — Cirt (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I've been re-watching Fringe as recently as last night and can't (yet) recall him (or his character at least) smoking, I do clearly recall the character breathing from a cylinder, presumably oxygen (the scene where he meets Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv 'over there' in the still standing World Trade Centre towers). I wonder if Nimoy was needing oxygen at that stage considering his cause of death? --220 of 03:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right. They worked the COPD oxygen therapy into the character, not the smoking. I must be thinking of John Noble doing bong hits. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas:(big breath in ... Ahhhhh) Yes, I didn't think of that! (another Aussie actor I might note ) "Good before bed" I believe his character Walter Bishop said. The oxygen may have just been an unfortunate co-incidence, as the Bell character was supposed to be suffering the adverse after-effects of swapping universes.220 of 04:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Better version. The labeling of "Red Vines" cracks me up every time.  :) Are you sure that Bell's use of oxygen was a coincidence? Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I have no idea if it was a coincidence, just speculating. Don't recall seeing that episode! (Season 2, Episode 20) More than half way through season 2 now, so might see that tonight. 220 of 09:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas: here is CNN's version from a year ago. Cheers! —ATinySliver/ 03:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is the LA Times as well. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

—ATinySliver/ 03:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"This is the BBC ... " "Last year, the actor revealed he was suffering chronic lung disease COPD, despite stopping smoking 30 years ago." 220 of 04:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

And other media including CNN. I don't think Nimoy knew he had COPD when he filmed Fringe, because it predated all of that. And I saw him in person during his visit to Alberta around the time he was filming Fringe and I saw no sign that he needed oxygen or anything like that. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Astronauts Mark Leonard Nimoy’s Passing

Added above free-use licensed video file.

— Cirt (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Although I respect the sentiment, I think this is a little over the line, maybe an external link to the video would be best. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Really over the top and just not content worthy of an encyclopedia article. External link, yes. In the body of the article? No. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let it sit for a few days (since Misplaced Pages has no deadline) and worry about cleaning up the article after the outpourings of grief have ended and editors will be more ... logical. Pathore (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

How often do European Space Agency and NASA astronauts get together to make a video like this about a person? — Cirt (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know but, (IMO) this takes the page directly over the Memorial page line. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, either, and frankly I don't care. Like Mlpearc, I say it crosses a line we needed and shouldn't cross. And, just because it exists, that doesn't make it suddenly inclusion-worthy or encyclopedic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

After (edit conflict)x 2. That video says a shit-load about the influence and wp:Notability of Nimoys career and his death, his character Spock, and Star Trek in general. A lot of rocket scientist type people (IIRC) mention Star Trek as an influence in taking up careers in that area. If it's to be only an external link then that's OK with me too.--220 of 04:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have no objections of the contents or the rarity of the video, I think having the video thumbnail in prose is blatantly memorial, I have no objections to an external link or inline reference. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify in the same manner. I don't object to some note of the video, I only object to it being where it is currently. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying too, I was just making a general observation, not commenting on anyone's particular comment. I was writing as being (or trying to be) the first reply to Cirt but I kept conflicting with everyone else's edits! 220 of 05:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Who are these astronauts, specifically? All I caught offhand was the surname "Fink." kencf0618 (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kencf0618:, the astronauts are: Michael Fincke and Luca Parmitano. — Cirt (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. kencf0618 (talk)

Note changed "passing" to "death", passing is a euphemism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.140.121.126 (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Names being clickable links

Why are Zachary Quinto and George Takei's names clickable links where as William Shatner's name is not?

In relation to the quotes regarding his passing. (illness and death)

Here is the link if someone wants to make his name clickable like theirs..

http://en.wikipedia.org/William_Shatner

Just a thought :) Encase people wish to learn about those who knew him best..

Also.. "Shatner" is all that is listed.. It should be William Shatner.

Please show similar respect as given for George Takei and Zachary Quinto.. Zachary Quinto didn't even know him that well anyways.. They met recently in his life and he was a young man to the old friends Leonard Nimoy knew. William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy were good friends. Leonard was there for shatner when his wife died. Best man at wedding.. Lots of history there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.105.26 (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2015

 Fixed Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@108.180.105.26: Yeh, me too. I think Quinto may be a bit overlinked, He had 3 iirc. I linked the first 'William Shatner' I could find in the text, though I may have missed a linked 'Shatner', as he seemed to be only linked twice at that time.

• Please note that we don't link every occurrence of a linkable term or name. "respect" doesn't come into it.
• Also that ] giving William Shatner is how we 'wiki-link'.
• Thirdly that while 'Shatner' likely shouldn't be linked, we also don't always spell out the persons whole name. Usually named in full on the first use, then by surname only, unless that might cause confusion where two person of the same surname are mentioned.
• As I said above re linking, "respect" does not come into it. We have no way of knowing how well Quinto knew Nimoy. Quintos' post suggested they were well acquainted. I don't know, very likely you don't know. Without a reliable source, we can't even comment on that, on the article page anyway. 220 of 07:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly .. "Respect" was just a statement regarding that section.. As 2 names were linked and spelled correctly while 1 was not.. As in.. Why not show similar respect, given information already listed.. For those interested in followup. Nothing more.
• Secondly .. Are you saying Leonard Nimoy would have cause to be fast friends with Zachary Quinto prior to 2009? During his involvement in the 2009 Star Trek movie. Leonard Nimoy is 47 years older then Zachary Quinto.. Which is less then the total number of years he has known and been friends with former co-star William Shatner.. To name 1 example. Perhaps they have become familiar with each other from their time on the movie.. who is to say.. but they are not life long friends.. And it is from those that knew him best that should be quoted more then not.. Twas the only point I was making.. All be it, between the lines :) 9:32, February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymanz (talk • contribs)

• Thirdly .. It was the first time in that section that William Shatner's name was being used. 9:37, February 2015 (UTC)

The Lieutenant missing?

From Portal:Star Trek

"29 February 1964 – "In the Highest Tradition", an episode of Gene Roddenberry's The Lieutenant was broadcast; it was the first time Roddenberry had worked with Leonard Nimoy (pictured)" – (Coincidentally, almost exactly 50 years ago)

This seems to be missing from Nimoys' page, however there also doesn't seem to be a source for these 'facts'. Additionally I noticed through this that on Nimoys' page Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek is not mentioned at all. Surely Roddenberry said something notable about Nimoy at some time? Or vice-versa?--220 of 08:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• You seem to be skeptical that Nimoy appeared in The Lieutenant. I believe there are numerous sources available to confirm this. In fact several other Trek actors appeared on The Lieutenant first. Shatner and Nimoy also filmed an episode of The Man from UNCLE together though sadly it wasn't the episode titled "The Vulcan Affair". 68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not particularly sceptical, but I am wary of un-sourced information. I was also just pointing out that that particular TV show was not mentioned on this page. Misplaced Pages (WP) requires verifiability and without a source it cannot be verified. People do sometimes put false information on WP you know? If there are "numerous sources available" then please point me at one. 220 of 15:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me the drive-by, but:

• Los Angeles Times
• International Business Times (item 1)
• video of appearance (cannot be used within the article per WP:COPYVIO)

—ATinySliver/ 22:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Downstream updates?

There are several articles linked from here that may need to be updated. Is it here that we should flag the update, or on their individual talk pages? Misplaced Pages is obviously a little flooded, so I don't want to put any extra work on editors... Example; http://en.wikipedia.org/I_Am_Spock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.226.129 (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

On the talk page of that article should be the most appropriate place, if discussion is required. You are allowed to update the pages yourself, unless its WP:protected for some reason. And of course done within WP guidelines and practices. --220 of 11:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - seems I underestimated the voracious appetite of Misplaced Pages editors; downstream edits/updates have all been completed before I could even formulate them. Wow. Just wow. My hat is off to them. It is a tribute to Leonard that he has attracted such efforts, and also to the many and varied Misplaced Pages editors who are conducting these edits with thoughtfulness. Well done to you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.226.129 (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Dates Active

His short-lived 'retirement' didn't include voice-work, as the newspaper article cited mentions, and as the entry already points out, he appeared in the Bruno Mars music video in 2011. Regarding 2013 being his final year of activity: He narrated a 90-min documentary released in 2014 entitled The Evolution of Stem Cell Research - though the work done may have been in 2013. Still - it is possible his 1951 debut in "Queen for a Day" was filmed in 1950, but the release year is still used. He also appeared in a German Volkswagen commercial in 2014. ("There are no small roles...") I'd suggest saying his active years were 1951-2014. Gavroche42 (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• I support 1951-2014. And it should be noted that he didn't actually retire during those years. That's a misnomer. He simply chose not to take on any major acting roles in order to devote himself to his photography work, and as the article lists this as one of his fields of endeavour, there's no need to have a gap. Also - though this needs to be confirmed - I thought it had been reported that Nimoy was planning to appear in the third JJ Abrams Star Trek movie. If this is the case, then it may be more correct to say 1951-2015. Just because he may not have completed any work in the first 8 weeks of this year doesn't mean he wasn't active. The fact he was engaging fans on social media as recently as four days before his death bears this out. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy Wedding Best Man

If you scroll down this link it shows a photo where Leonard Nimoy was best man at William Shatner's Wedding to Nerine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2973592/Tearful-William-Shatner-pictured-hours-death-brother-Leonard-Nimoy-echoes-Spock-actor-s-final-tweet-telling-fans-Live-Long-Prosper.html

I realize it shows copyright on the lower left hand corner of the photo.. So maybe it cannot be put on here.. But it shows some personal history of Leonard Nimoy that is not listed on here.. Or perhaps a section for relationship with co-stars or people in his life?

In any case.. Perhaps that information is better suited for Mr Shatner's page?

I just thought I would make mention of it, and you all can decide what to do :) 6:51pm February 28th (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymanz (talk • contribs)

Astronaut Salutes Nimoy From Orbit

Added above image.

NASA Astronaut Terry W. Virts took this picture of the Vulcan salute from space; Nimoy's home town of Boston is visible from the International Space Station window.

The image itself is getting a good deal of coverage from secondary sources.

— Cirt (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Nimoy narrated the documentary "The Miracle of Israel" in 2013!

https://www.themiracleofisrael.org/ why is this not listed anywhere? I saw it when it ran on ABC last year. Someone should list it here. It won eight Telly Awards. I couldn't find it on IMDB either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.168.124 (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Miracle of Israel" Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Nimoy narrated the documentary "The Miracle of Israel" in 2013! https://www.themiracleofisrael.org/ why is this not listed anywhere? I saw it when it ran on ABC last year. Someone should list it here. It won eight Telly Awards. I couldn't find it on IMDB either. 184.78.168.124 (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added it to his television work, although the provenance of the documentary/propaganda still needs to be fleshed out. kencf0618 (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

And here we go. http://www.bizapedia.com/az/THE-MIRACLE-OF-ISRAEL-FOUNDATION.html kencf0618 (talk)

Video Game roles

Hi Leonard Nimoy also reprized Spock in two other video games (Star Trek 25th Anniversary- 1992) and (Star Trek Judgment Rites- 1993)

   Ron Harkrider  (Reh682 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC))

Book of Poetry: "You & I"

he also wrote a book of poetry that my wife posseses. It is called "You & I'.

here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/You-I-Leonard-Nimoy/dp/091231026X — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devoutkast (talk • contribs) 15:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Navigational popups

As you can see I trying to resolve the issue of Gadget-Navigational popus, which on hover of a linked page title normally show the infobox omage and aids in distinguishing the page subject, how ever on Nimoy's the prior format, on hover of the page link the popup shown the audio file icon of File:The Brain's Inner Workings - Part 1 - Structure and Function - Leonard Nimoy voice.ogg once that was moved to a different section, then the DOD video file was showing up and in it's present format the Spock/Kirk image is showing, which is better than the other two IMO, but I'm at a loss on where to locate what to get this resolved. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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

1. Aldrin, Buzz (February 28, 2015). "Buzz Aldrin: Leonard Nimoy, my fellow space traveler". CNN. Retrieved March 1, 2015.

• Support as nom. —ATinySliver/ 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/ 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/ 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."

Missing Theater Credit -Sherlock Holmes -National Tour--posted Feb 28th but edited & updated March 1st 2015 by author

In 1976 (winter through mid-summer)I had the great pleasure of of playing opposite Leonard on stage as his young detective asstnt-(no-not Watson but a fun role as butler/spy sleuthing for Holmes in the villains house!)in the Nederlander's theatre presentation of the Royal Shakespear Co's production of 'Sherlock Holmes'. We had rehearsed in NYC & opened in Philly with the estimable Robert Stephens in the title role, then played Toronto's O'Keefe Center & 1 week in a new theatre in Hamilton Ont where Robt was to leave us to play King Lear in London. Leonard began rehearsing with us last week of Toronto & was due to open (after Hamilton) in Los Angeles. However a generous Robert gave up his last show-to allow Leornard to face an audience on closing night in Hamilton, so he could be more at home in the role for the Los Angeles opening that followed a few days later at the Century City Plaza. With 'trekkies' flocking in (we broke all box office records everywhere we played), we extended well into spring in LA then it was Chicago for May & a final 2 week run in Denver to mid-June. It was a fine & highly successful tour indeed -a great and happy experience. Leonard often checked with me on the level of his English accent, which did elude him a little, but who cared with a continual full-house of ardent fans from which we all benefited enormously! I often visited he & Sandy (his then wife) in his dressing room for chats pre-show or between matinee-evening show. He spoke of Jewish & others history-and we shared a mutual love of poetry & enthusiasm for photography. A constant source of deep concern for the poor leading ingenue in the cast then was that Beirut was under bombardment & ceasing to be the highly desirable Med-resort area it had been. She was extremely fearful for her parents who were diplomats there. That situation worsened & it was obvious that at rehearsal for LA's opening she'd had little sleep & Leonard demanded a cot for her to rest in her dressing room & was re-assuring, comforting & supportive to her (as we all tried to be) on what was after all his 'home-town' stage opening. He had few worries though with all those fans! Fond memories of sharing the stage & some personal time with this charming, talented & gentle man. RIP. Neilohunt (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Neil Hunt

Thanks for sharing your info. Sherlock Holmes is mentioned at the end of the section After Star Trek in a list of plays that Nimoy appeared in. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Update — It's been moved to the end of the section Stage and expanded a little. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And it's grown to be the third paragraph of the section Stage. (Note that the links I've been giving are to particular versions of the article from its history. For any further updates, please see the article's page.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Section "Other work after Star Trek"

This needs to be a priority for us, I think. Numerous single-sentence grafs that would not withstand a theoretical FAC, and numerous passages without citation. —ATinySliver/ 08:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Quote farm

Lets upgrade the articles level. So we need to take the time and cleanup this article of all the quotes. Very hard read with all the breakups. Perhaps best to start with what quotes do we actually need VS the ones we can we simply reword. --Moxy (talk) 17:39, 3 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/ 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/ 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/ 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/ 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/ 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/ 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)

Possible sources 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)

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/ 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 Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Biographies that The opening paragraph should have:

Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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/ 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/ 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/ 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/ 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/ 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/ 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/ 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/ 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/ 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 Misplaced Pages 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/ 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/ 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/ 00:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording: "... was an American actor, film director, photographer, singer, songwriter and poet." —ATinySliver/ 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/ 00:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• B-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Low-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Photography articles
• Low-importance Photography articles
• WikiProject Photography articles
• B-Class Star Trek articles
• Top-importance Star Trek articles
• WikiProject Star Trek articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class American television articles
• High-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• WikiProject United States articles