Talk:Time Person of the Year/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Rfc: Elizabeth II

There is clear consensus for removing the country column from the article entirely. This option not only had the most support, but it was also the only option which was argued for with appropriate guidelines. MOS:FLAG and WP:ICONDECORATION were the primary arguments for option 5, and they were never refuted. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 13:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

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

The country column in the article for Elizabeth II's entry. Which version should we go with.

GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Options 6, 2, 7 or 5, in that order of prerference. Strongly oppose 1, 3 & 4. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Multiple countries has precedence in the list: Pope John XXIII, The Peacemakers, Pope John Paul II, David Ho, Andrew Grove, The Good Samaritans, Pope Francis) and there's enough height in EIIR's row to accomodate. Also okay with 3 and then 1. Not so supportive of 5, but wouldn't fuss much if it were implemented. Strongly oppose 2; separates the UK from the rest of the Commonwealth realms for a reason unapparent to any reader and, as such, is misleading. Also unclear by way of linking to the article Commonwealth realms; a reader would have to study that article to know which countries EIIR was queen of in 1952. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)}}
A moratorium should be imposed on GoodDay conducting RfCs on this same topic in multiple places in quick succession, it not simultaneously. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)}}
If you don't like them, then don't participate :) Anyways, this is the last Rfc started by me, on this general topic, for the rest of Elizabeth II's life & reign. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
"If you don't like them..." Straw man. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Options 2, 4, 5 and 6 are fine with me, not necessarily in that order. I want to see some more input from other users. Option 6 is a new addition and a modified version of Option 2 added to reflect recent comments. --Killuminator (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 6 (UK only), or possibly option 5. She's the queen of many countries, but she is from UK. Are we really supposed to have a flag for every citizenship? That's not how it's done for others, it's rather the notable countries. Stalin is shown as Soviet Union, even though he was born in the Russian Empire, as an example. The only others that have multiple flags are people who are born in one country, but did their notable work as a citizen of another, and that hardly applies here. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@OpenFuture:, I find your argument unclear. It's implied countries/flags should represent where people are "from"; yet, it seems the USSR and its flag are okay for Stalin, even though he was born in pre-Soviet Russia. What, then, does "from" mean, if not where one was born? Are you saying Stalin's entry is presently incorrect or incomplete?
Further, where they did their "notable work" is mentioned as a criteria. "Notable" it entirely subjective, though; what is notable work and what isn't? Does being queen and performing the associated duties not meet the definition of "notable work"? Does being involved in a country's constitutional evolution, national unity, exercise of sovereignty, and major state events not qualify as "notable work"?
More clarification is needed.
(Additionally, citizenship isn't relevant to Elizabeth II; she holds none, except maybe EU citizenship. I doubt anyone would support the EU and its flag in EIIR's row.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The only reason I could think of to include all flags was that she was a citizen of these countries. Since there is apparently a serious debate on whether she is or not (I searched for it) I now see absolutely no reason to include any other flag than UK. But no, I do not think being coronated in UK counts as "notable work" in countries that she doesn't even seem to have visited. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Other than the irrelevance of citizenship, I still don't understand your reasoning. Nobody mentioned the coronation. I asked what qualifies as "notable work", since it's the term you used. I gave a general list of things Elizabeth II has done for Canada that I think meets the definition of "notable work" (it's notable enough to have been documented and studied). But, as I said, "notable" is subjective. So, how dies "notable work" function as a criteria for which countries/flags to place next to an individual? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Everything about this is subjective, that's why we have a discussion. Had Elizabeth done those things for Canada in 1952? Because that's the year we are talking about here. Time seems to have selected her because she was a "of a fresh young blossom on roots that had weathered many a season of wintry doubt. The British (my emphasis), as weary and discouraged as the rest of the world in 1952, saw in their new young Queen a reminder of a great past... and dared to hope that she might be an omen of a great future." The full article doesn't seem to exist online, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm under the impression we're trying to establish what should go next to Elizabeth II and why, and whether Elizabeth II should be unique, should follow what's done for the other individuals in the list, of vice versa.
No, I suppose she hadn't done those things as queen in 1952. But, along that line, she hadn't done anything as queen for the UK, either (she hadn't even had her coronation). The only really significant (subjective, I know) thing she did was became queen, which happened in all her then-realms, not just the UK.
I'm not sure what the relevance is of the article referring to the weariness of the British. It doesn't negate any of the facts or render them irrelevant to this matter. Nothing similar seems to have governed the choices of country/flag or countries/flags used for other persons in this list. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Time doesn't seem to have agreed with you that all she did was to become queen. Ah well.
I obviously think she should *not* be unique, you would need a very strong argument for that. I have no idea why you say "Nothing similar seems to have governed the choices" in other cases. Explain in that case *what* governed the choices in other cases. Is it the country of birth? Then Elizabeth should have a UK flag only. Is it the country of residence? Then Elizabeth II would have a UK flag only. Is it the country she did whatever she did to become person of the year? Then she should have a UK flag. Is it her citizenship? Then apparently she should have no flag at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Her becoming queen is exactly why she was chosen.
Fair enough if you don't think she should be unique in the list. I'd rather she not be, either. As you've noted, the countries/flags paired with people on this list are the those with which they were recognisably associated. As Elizabeth was Person of the Year because she became queen, this list should then recognise the fact she became queen not just of the UK. And if there's anyone missing a flag/country, by that same criteria, that omission should be rectified. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Claiming that she was chosen solely because she became a Queen seems equally insulting to Time Magazine and to the Queen. Notice the lack of other heads of state in this list. And the quote I posted earlier shows clearly that this honor was not bestowed upon her just because she became Queen, but because how she had acted.
I do understand that you are proud of both your country and your Queen, I would be too if I was you. But your desperation to get the Canadian flag into the list doesn't change the fact that this would mean treating Elizabeth II differently to others in this list, solely with the aim to have more Canadian flags. I don't think that's a good enough reason, and that said, I will stop this argumentation. My opinion has not changed. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The whole matter of why she was chosen is speculative and, as such, is not important. But, you should refrain from making bad faith accusations. It is not insulting in the least to say the only globally significant thing Elizabeth did in 1952 was become queen (which was the catalyst for all the news stories about a new, young queen (and mother), speculation, and fashion stories).
Also, please don't make false insinuations about my motives. This isn't about decorating a list with my favourite flags. It's about presenting as much of the pertinent and accurate information as possible in a manner that adheres at least to Wikipedia policy such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. Readers shouldn't be misled by way of missing information. And multiple countries next to EIIR being a different treatment for her is patently false. I don't even understand why you'd say so when you've indicated you're perfectly aware other entries have multiple countries/flags in their rows. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Howdy Openfuture. In other words, she was born in the UK, lives in the UK, her coronation was in the UK & so it's best to use the  United Kingdom. Am I understanding this correctly? GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Also Openfuture. If we had a copy of the 1952 Time magazine 'person of the year'. I'm quite confident, it's mostly (if not exclusively) about Elizabeth II's role as Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
You asked for it, pretty much exclusively mentioned as Queen of Great Britain. --Killuminator (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I went through it & yep, it's very much exclusively Britain. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
And it even starts with explaining that she didn't become person of the year just because she became a queen, which kills *that* argument. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Not really, as the segment, despite how it starts, ends up only covering her becoming queen, the events around it, and the effects of it.
Regardless, how does any of that negate the fact Elizabeth II was queen of more than just the UK in 1952? How does it align with the others in this list who have more than one country/flag; do their TIME write-ups give absolute equal coverage to each of the countries next to their names? How much is enough? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, one thing is sure: They were not Monarchs of those countries. The flags are all as far as I can tell, the country the person was born in or lived in, which is frequently the same, or in some cases successor states (in which case only the successor state flag is shown). The only persons who have multiple flags are Popes, Andres Grove and David Ho. You still, despite much prodding, has not given one single reason to treat Elizabeth II differently. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
"The only persons who have multiple flags are Popes, Andres Grove and David Ho. You still, despite much prodding, has not given one single reason to treat Elizabeth II differently." Well, there must have been some big misunderstanding along the way. I thought I'd been quite clear: It's acceptable to treat Elizabeth II the same way. Popes, Andres Grove, and David Ho can have multiple countries/flags, so can she. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Good, then we agree, we treat her the same way as everybody else, and give her one flag for the country where she is born, and one flag for the country where she lives. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Except, you've changed the goalposts. You said those who had more than one flag were "born in one country, but did their notable work as a citizen of another". Of course the citizenship bit is irrelevant to Elizabeth II. But, otherwise, showing the countries of which she became queen in 1952 follows the rest of the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not different goalposts, that's a different and more accurate wording of pretty much the same thing, that has the benefit of also being relevant to Elizabeth II. But let's take country of birth and citizenship then. For Elizabeth that is, lets see: Country of Birth: UK. Citizenships: Oh, look, none! Yes, I'm getting sarcastic. No matter what we decide should apply to this table, the end result is the same: Elizabeth gets one flag: UK. WP:DROPTHESTICK. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, "born in one country, but did their notable work as a citizen of another" is not the same thing as "one flag for the country where [they were] born, and one flag for the country where [they live]". Elizabeth II was born in a country and notable work as queen of others. So, we agree (before you moved the goalposts, that is). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
No, she had in 1952 not done any notable work as queen in other countries. We've been over that argument already, and you even agreed. Why are you dragging up old arguments we already are done with? What can possibly be the purpose of that, except attempting to wear people out and making them frustrated? And you still haven't come up with one single argument for why we should treat Elizabeth II differently from others. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I agreed she hadn't done much of anything as queen by 1952, given she became queen in 1952. She did as much in the UK as in her other countries. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Birthplace & where she lives. I do believe that's the UK, on both counts. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, right, that's not what you want. You want Elizabeth II to be treated *differently* from everybody else. But you have no arguments why. And you are in fact by now the only one that argues for this, everyone else in the Survey is OK with option 6. I think we have a clear consensus now. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • UK Only or Option 5Option 6 - Looking at the source TIME refers to her only as "the monarch of Great Britain" hence that is the reason she was "Man of the Year". Constitutionally, she may be the Queen of many countries but monarchists argue that those titles are separte and individual and it was only her ascendency as Queen of the United Kingdom that was of particular interest to TIME and for which she received the designation from TIME. Otherwise, why not also include the flags for Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man? Alexander's Hood (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Options 2 or 6 The article should list the country of residence or that most associated with the person, there is no need to mess with explaining technicalities. Agree with OpenFuture above. Reywas92Talk 01:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 5 not sure why we have flags to begin with ....article is about individuals...making the countries stand out over the persons does not help our readers in anyway. Section should be removed and space given to lager images. This is the kind of situation for which our guideline should be followed WP:ICONDECORATION.-- Moxy (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you recommending that we delete all the countries, aswell? GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes....this list is made up of people who have been internationally recognized for their individual (be it good or bad) contributions to the world (mainly news headlines). The articles in "Time magazine" about these people do not infer that their country of origin had anything to do with the reason for being named "person of the year". Yes the articles mention country ..but it is in passing...as in a bio titbit....not relevant to make a list here. -- Moxy (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Just checking, per clarification on your preference :) GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
In cases like this I believe its up to those "voting" for flag icons to show how going against our guideline is helpful for our readers. Can someone explain how a link to Taiwan with a nice flag icon with help me understand more about David Ho that is not on his bio page? -- Moxy (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
That guideline mentions improved navigation. They really make it easier for me to browse the list especially for non US inclusions. With mere words, I would have to get closer to the monitor and keep track of words more carefully. The flags make it much easier for me at least since they stand out much more than words. --Killuminator (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Can I vote for another option not listed? I would suggest Option 6 the British flag with the addition of the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom. As Sovereign, the Queens Standard is the only flag to fly over the palace while the queen is in residence. The exception being when the Union Jack was raised in tribute to the late Diana, for "the peoples princess". This would be similar to the Pope, who has both the Italian flag and the flag of Vatican City. (Actually a case could be made for removing the Italian flag on the Pope's listings as Vatican City is a sovereign City/State.) So yeah, the Royal Standard along with the British flag should be used. 1305cj (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment (summoned by bot): Option 5, as the recognition is of the person, not a state. It is rather unclear what "country" refers to in this context anyway. Is it nationality, or country of birth, or country of residence, etc.? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 5 Unless Time includes nationality into consideration in some way I am unaware of, it's completely irrelevant to the people being honoured. The wider country isn't being honoured. What does it represent anyway? For David Ho and Andrew Gove, the award was for work completed in the United States long after they both personally settled there, yet it gives the impression that somehow Taiwan and Hungary are relevant, and even places them first. All the popes were famous for things they did while Pope, not for things relating to the other countries (Yet for the popes the Vatican is listed before the other country for some reason?). The multi-awards and the global awards reinforce this. (If not 5, 4 I guess: it fits into the precedent the other multiple country entries have set, where flags are clearly not there to indicate where the eligible work was done.) CMD (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure, but I believe they had descriptions on the title that indicated where the honoree is from for example India's Gandhi or something along those lines. The tradition is long gone either way, Merkel's cover calls her the Chancellor of the Free World, and some covers have planets, groups of people, concepts etc. I think the notes column is far more important, the reader should know why that particular person was honored that year and the same column could indicate nationality. --Killuminator (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 5 per Moxy and CMD. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Follow the guideline: Option 5 The Flag MOS says Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Drop the full column. There's no particular reason the table should have a column for height, gender, or nationality. (Other than the fact that other people/sources often do engage in nationalistic score keeping, but NPOV we should be above following suit.) Furthermore MOS:FLAGBIO illustrates why it's a disaster to try to make basic indications of nationality. Elizabeth II's entry here shows what a mess it is. Just don't. Alsee (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 5 I honestly don't see what value that column adds. If the country is important to the designation then mention it in the notes (which is done anyway). It seems like the ultimate in redundancy to say that Hungarian freedom fighters are from Hungry and some like the computer don't even have a country. AIRcorn (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 5 – at the very least get rid of the flag icons. Per MOS:FLAG: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." Mojoworker (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • NOTE TO CLOSER: Two editors, Cullen328 and Quinto Simmaco, attempted to !vote on this topic, but there was a confusing situation on this page. Check this section to see what happened. You may wish to take into account their intent to participate. Alsee (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for notifying me, Alsee. I support removing all of these flag icons from this article (and most other articles) because, in my opinion, they add almost nothing of encyclopedic value but instead serve as endless points of contention for editors who get all wrapped up in nationalistic disputes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Added 7th option: Same as #2, but without the flag (for this or any other entry), which is more consonant with MOS:FLAGS. Failing that, options 3, 1, and 5 also get at the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 23:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 5 Redundant, not evenly applied, and a cause of needless debate. trackratte (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 7 or Option 5 - Option 7 seems to be sensible (and in line with MOS:FLAG). Option 5 would be even better as it would remove the undue emphasis on nationality. Kaldari (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC doesn't ask the right question. Rather than what should be done specifically for Elizabeth II, as though she's the only entry in this list, the matter to sort out should have been: what's the purpose of the flags and what determines which are shown? That way, everyone in the list could be treated the same and it could be explained to readers why that flag or those flags are next to the person's (or persons') name. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your observations. Of course, others can weigh in on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
IMO, the purpose of the flags is what was pointed out by the user Reywas92. --Killuminator (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
And we've been over that. No matter WHAT we come up with, Miesianiacal's standpoint will not be supported.
  • Citizenship: Elizabeth II has none, she gets no flags.
  • Countries they are most associated with: UK.
  • Country of birth: UK.
  • Country of residence: UK.
  • Country where the work recognized was done: UK.
The only way we can get Miesianiacal's standpoint is if we decide that the flag column should contain countries that you are head of state or monarch in, unless they have below a hundred thousand population, in which case Elizabeth II gets several flags and most people in the list gets no flags. Which seems rather pointless.
This discussion is dead, and IMO the consensus is clear. Now all that needs to be done is to wait for the article protection to be lifted. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Your resort to passive aggressive personal attacks is telling.
Instead of focusing on trying to make me look like some kind of idiot loser, you should keep your attention on what I write. If you did, you'd know I am also fine with no flags. That was in response to the question of what to do with Elizabeth II`s line; though, I would extend that acceptance to application of the no-flag idea to the whole list, for consistency, which remains important. Hence, my statement above, which you actually have not clearly addressed. Are you for only one flag for everyone (i.e. only country of birth)? Are you for multiple flags and, if so, which ones (i.e. country of birth and country where work recognised was done; or more)? Neither of those are currently applied consistently through the list.
Alternately, whatever you implement for Elizabeth II will be applied to all others in the list. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing passive aggressive and no personal attacks in anything I wrote, and I would remind you that on wikipedia we ramains civil and discuss the topics and not each other. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and WP:AGF is a component of the maintenance of civility. Please keep it in mind. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Checking over this article's title & content (which is Time Person of the Year), I think it is fair for one to assume that Time Magazine be used as a source & that it's a reliable source. I've checked through the 1952 Time Person of the Year source (provided by Killuminator) & it appears to only emphasize Elizabeth II's role as British monarch. What do the rest of you think? Should we question Time Magazine as a reliable source? IMHO, we shouldn't. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've asked this question, because Miesianiacal stated (in the pre-Rfc discussion, at 3:07 - Feb 17, 2016) that "Any mass media ignorance or inaccuracy isn't a guide for an encylopedia". Mies, are you suggesting that Time Magazine is unreliabe? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

5 to 1 is consensus in my book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.64.170 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the current 'lone' dissenter, would argue that :) GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
They always do, but consensus doesn't require that everyone likes it. There is a clear consensus, and time to change the article IMO. The edit that was done changed more than the flags, though, and was reasonably reverted. I also wonder if we should add the Isle of Man and Channel Islands to the list of places she became a queen of, or if we implicitly include that in UK, even though UK is only "responsible for" these islands, but doesn't actually INLCUDE them? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, the Notes column. IMHO, we should just have Queen of the United Kingdom (per the 1952 Time Magazine source), with a footnote for the six other realms. Of course, whatever the rest of you decide, is cool with me :) GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I find the footnote rather redundant if you notice the very same information is used for the notes section. I would oppose adding The Isle of Man and the other one since they aren't countries. --Killuminator (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, so the change should just be changing Commonwealth realms + footnote to the UK flag, then. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Clarification: The Notes version that the IP put in (earlier), but with a footnote for the other six realms, attached to Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I was talking about this Notes section - In 1952, Elizabeth acceded to the thrones of United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Ceylon, New Zealand, Pakistan and South Africa following the death of her father, King George VI, the footnote would just replicate these same countries already mentioned here. --Killuminator (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

So, you recommend just Queen of the United Kingdom in the Notes column? GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
No, the notes column is good as it is. It provides more info. I consider the footnote to be unnecessary since the notes column give off pretty much the same information. --Killuminator (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The footnote was being offered 'only' if we changed the Notes to just Queen of the United Kingdom. Not with the current Notes version :) GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, my proposal would be to keep the notes version as it is and ditch the footnote. The notes section looks like a more appropriate place to note these countries. --Killuminator (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Whatever you & the others decide about the Notes column's content? is cool with me :) My primary concern was/is the Country column :) GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
PS - I didn't include the Notes column, when I opened this Rfc. Perhaps, it's something that would only need a local consensus after the Rfc's closed. Anyways, whatever ya'll prefer :) GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, so Done, then. If the notes field need changing, whoever feels this is necessary can probably be WP:BOLD and do that. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wowsers, it's appearing as though my fourth preference (option 5) is in the lead. Meanwhile, my first preference (option 6) is running second :) GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Update - I'll be requesting closure of this Rfc by an administrator, as early as March 20, 2016. If anyone wants to argue that the Rfc was already closed/with a result already reached before the sudden 'new' influx of editors after a period of quietness? Now is their chance. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Update - I've requested closure, at the Rfc closure page. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No close seem to be happening. I counted, and Option 5 seems to have 8 !votes, and Option 6 has 4, taking into account that some people only had a weak preference for one vs the other. Option 7 has two !votes (and if it had been there originally, I would have strongly opposed it), and if we count "opposes" as negative !votes, option 2 gets only one. Other options have only one or two.

Option 5, removing the column, is the most popular option, but in total only gets 8 out of 16 !votes. I'm neither uninvolved, nor an admin, but it doesn't seem like a consensus, really. I'm inclined to let the UK Only option "win" (it's the current status as well), and create a new RfC on whether we remove the flag column or not. Opinions? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm content with your reading of the situation & would go along with what you propose. GoodDay (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Update - I've made a request at WP:AN, for an un-involved administrator to close this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Just a small question

The flags have been in this article since 2007. How many people have died because of those flags during that time? Or during the year before it had flags, how many deaths did it cause then? I'd be interested to know, since so many people are so determined to push their POV through. So please, tell me, how many people died because of these flags?

What? Sorry? None? But... what the fuck are you all so upset about then? Chill out. Take it easy. We have an RfC about if we should have flags or not. Voice your opinion. It really doesn't matter if we have flags or not. Let us just cool the fuck down, and end the Great Elizabethean Flag War of 2016 with reasonable discussion in the RfC. Is that really too much to ask? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep the Rfc you started, opened. It's a runoff between the top 2 choices of the previous Rfc. You were bold & that's what was required, as cob-webs were growing here. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
No we can't have two RfC's open at the same time. Fuck this, fuck you all, I'm closing my RfC. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I've contacted WP:AN & requested an un-involved administrator, to close the previous Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Finally. I disagree with the close, but I have run out of fucks to give. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I've asked the closer to reconsider his actions. The request is here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the closer, as several others here, view option 5 as equivalent to the other options, even though it isn't. It's like if asking "What color should we paint this bikeshed" and 50% of the vote is "kill all bicyclists". It got the majority vote, sure, but not a consensus. But as I said, I don't care, really. I expect a second RfC to get the same result, anyway, it was 8 to 4, so far. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth II & the Notes column

In the Notes column for Elizabeth II's entry, we've got the United Kingdom & the six other Commonwealth realms listed. Seeing as the Time Person of the Year's 1952/53 source focuses exclusively or mostly on Elizabeth II's role as Queen of the United Kingdom? I think it would be more accurate to at least, show the United Kingdom & then have the six other realms in a footnote. What ya'll think? GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Avoid the issue by not mentioning the thrones or the countries? That information is available in her article. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Blanking her Notes entry is possible, but it would leave readers wondering why she was chosen Time Person of the Year in 1952. Going by the TPOTY source, it's her accession as Queen of the United Kingdom, that apparently got her selected. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Not blanking. Just not mentioning the countries. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
If you don't show any countries, then that's leaving her Notes entry 'blank'. I need a visual of what you're suggesting. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
"In 1952, Elizabeth became queen following the death of her father, King George VI" Problem solved. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There actually is no issue to deal with, OF. It's best to just WP:DENY the pretense that there is some kind of problem with the note. We needn't feed someone's craving for conflict. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
No issue? She is also Lord of Mann, why is that not mentioned? It's DEEPLY offensive! --OpenFuture (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll see how things go for about a week. If no local consensus is reached, then I'll open an Rfc on this matter. Such an Rfc will have only 3 options, so it won't be as complex as the Feb Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

There already is a local consensus. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
It would likely be best to open an Rfc on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You're wrong, as RfCs are for resolving disputes that can't otherwise be resolved and there's no dispute here anywhere near that point. But, what the hell do you care what I say?
Can you even explain how what you want would improve the article? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll open an Rfc on the matter, shortly. You're certainly free to give your input there. As always, I will accept & abide by its result, whatever that result is. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth II's Notes

There is consensus to move the countries to a footnote (Option C), but no consensus to go one step farther and remove them altogether (Option B). (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Which country(s) should we show in Elizabeth II's notes?
A) United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Ceylon, New Zealand, Pakistan & South Africa? which is the status-quo.
B) United Kingdom
C) United Kingdom, with a footnote for the other six countries
D) No countries.
GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Notes Survey

  • B or C - would be my preference, as the 1952 Time Person of the Year source, mentions only her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. A compromise would be to add the six other realms in a footnote. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • D or B. Only UK was mentioned, but I think it's easier if we just don't mention any country at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The note is fine as it is.
This RfC--opened mere hours after the end of the previous acrimonious dispute--is not intended to improve the article. In reality, it has a twofold purpose: 1) attempt to further promote GoodDay's Canadian republican agenda and 2) stir up more conflict to satiate GoodDay's need for it. The RfC should be closed immediately. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm assuming that you prefer option A. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
You can be certain I'm about an inch from reporting this and you at AN/I. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • B or C, not only for reasons given but per COMMONNAME, which applies mainly to article titles but makes sense to apply here. Her full title is probably as long as your arm (inc. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, before you start to fully name 'the others'). The purpose is simply to identify WHO and links satisfy the need for further info. Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no title that "fully name[s] 'the others'"; she has a different title in each realm. (That's the result of agreement in the early 1950s to have her titling reflect the independence and equality among the realms she reigned over, which certain people here in Wikipedia would prefer be forgotten.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
In agreement, Pincrete. Also, we've the Time Magazine 1952 source. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I realise she has many titles, the countries have long full titles. My point was that we are inevitably involved in abbreviation and the abbreviation should be one which is not insulting to her, nor her realms but is still recognisable to our readers as how they would think of her. The fact that Time referred to her a Q of UK, is I think a detail. There is no reason to think that they were doing other than what I am suggesting (ie being brief), rather than making her TPotY BECAUSE of being Q of the UK solely. Pincrete (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Abbreviation is not the main concern. Accuracy and neutrality come first, abbreviation second.
We don't know what the author of the TIME piece was thinking about what his or her readers would think. It's quite possible the person was poorly educated on leaders of other countries, as American journalists commonly are (*ahem* "Queen of England" *ahem*). Equally, we don't know what readers of this site think (is it based on the inaccuracy they read in and hear from the mass media?). In the end, this is an encyclopedia and it's certainly a disservice to its readers to give false impressions due either to internally invented stratification (even if it is based what editors feel the mass media does; we're not working on a magazine or a newspaper) or outright omission. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A sort of, but in a different form. I'm not thrilled with the current text. This is prose, and it should be reasonably simple to mention everything important. Britain was important because of its Empire, which the realms emerged from. Listing just the realms or just Britain seems inadequate, note Britain's empire and the non-UK realms after that. I don't understand how this went to an RfC so quickly, as there is no discussion on the matter. CMD (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I opened an Rfc on this matter, to get as much input as possible. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
And also, most of this discussion was already done as a part of the Flag RfC. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I recall no significant discussion on different ways the note section could be formulated in the flag RfC. CMD (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
It's mainly the same discussion. "What countries should be included". --OpenFuture (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Treating a discussion on entries in a plain list (a discussion in which the meaning of the list entries was brought into question) as the same discussion on how to word some prose is not convincing. CMD (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
No one is treating anything like anything. It is the same problem and hence mainly the same discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Problem? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • B then C -- or even better, "British Empire" with hyperlink to that article. The point here is that she was "important" according to sources partly because of her being "queen of the world" in a sense in the crumbling imperial framework of the world at the time, as well as being "Queen of England" but it feels really weird to me to refer to the "throne of... Pakistan" for instance... faraway lands that didn't choose her or install a throne for her by self-choice. So it is reifying a colonial version of history in a sense. Linking to British Empire sort of solves this problem. SageRad (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    To the extent which there can be said to still have been a British Empire in 1952, neither Australia, nor New Zealand, nor Canada, nor South Africa had been part of it at least since 1931; Sri Lanka/Ceylon hadn't been part of it since 1948; and Pakistan had never been part of the British empire, as it was only founded as a separate nation after Indian independence. So that won't solve the problem from the point of view of people who want to mention those nations. Personally, I would think C is the best option, but I really don't think it's all that important either way. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • C then B. I don't necessarily have a problem with including all the kingdoms, but they aren't how she's primarily known, and so shouldn't be front and center like that. For the same reason, I wouldn't object to simply stripping it down to option B. Fieari (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Notes Discussion

And for the love of all that is holy, why did you once again make an RfC with "What should it say of Elizabeth II" and the option "Kill everything!"? That's not a good way to make RfC's, as proven above. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In agreement, I've removed the 'delete all' option & made it into a no countries option. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

After about a week & so far, we've input from only 3 individuals. Oh well, we've got about another 3-weeks, so no major concerns. Like in any other Rfc, I will abide by & accept the results of this one :) GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Her 1952 titles, which is the relevant year, was "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Normandy, Lord of Mann". Although those two last ones together with Queen of Gibraltar" seems somewhat unoffical. Hence, should we mention anything than the United Kingdom mentioned in the source, it should say that she in 1952 "became Queen of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas". --OpenFuture (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Would "became Queen of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions beyond the Seas", suffice? GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I would say no. Either we go with what the source says, or what the official title says. Or "Became Queen", which is still my preferred solution. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
'became Queen', is I think exquisitively concise, but I thought the RfC was about 'of where?' or, at least, which do we mention. To be honest I don't understand why there is a problem or why this is an issue. Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
We've one major problem with having "Ireland" mentioned, OpenFuture. The Republic of Ireland has been in existence since 1949, thus 5/6th of the island wasn't in anyway connected with the UK, when Elizabeth II ascended the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but her title still to this day says "Ireland". Yeah, it's a mess. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Re Ireland, you can't take her 'official title' and then start synthing-out the bits you don't think she's entitled to hold! just try telling the other 1/6th of Ireland, (with nearly half the population and at that time most of the industry), that they weren't Ireland or she wasn't their Queen. Why Duke of Lombardy for god's sake? You expect these matters to have much rhyme or reason? Pincrete (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" was the name of the sovereign state in 1952, just as it's today. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The country yes. But that's not what she is Queen of. That would for example, most relevantly for this discussion, not include Canada. Her title does, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to stick with options B or C, in that order. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Observation of survey

IMHO, we've consensus to go with either option B or C. Anyways, I've asked for closure & a ruling on this Rfc, as it's reached its 30th day. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Time Person of the Year. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Absurd images

The Earth and computer are fine, but some of the cartoons are just silly and smack of being placeholders. Like the beaker, when we have a free image of William Shockley. The peace sign- we have a photo of Nelson Mandela. The whistle is especially dumb. We have a free photo of Coleen Rowley. I'd like to use these instead. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, but the You photo is seriously pushing the nonsense threshold as well. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016

Please add a period after the S in Harry S Truman. One instance does have the period and the other does not. The main article of Mr. Truman is titled "Harry S. Truman" 192.173.32.241 (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"President of the Divided States of America"

While I understand that only a brief notes can be written in each row/entry in Person of the Year list, I still can't comprehend why "President of the Divided States of America" thingy cannot be written in the notes column, despite it being *really* noteworthy (and Time Magazine really did it). It maybe the first time that the magazine had made such move. The "Man of the Decade", "Man of the Half-Century", "Machine of the Year" etc are included in the notes as well as some brief notes explaining how and why this person was selected. Chitetskoy (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

We should not include it, as the country is always divided after each prez election. Heck 1972 was the last time a presidential candidate got over 60% of the popular vote. Since that time, several prez elections ended with nobody getting at least 50%. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
While elections may be divisive in any country, including my own, I think it is the first and only time yet TIME magazine has referred to any elected official and actually wrote it on the cover page as the "President of the DIVIDED States", or please correct me if I'm wrong. Chitetskoy (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I won't oppose its addition, if it's accompanied by a direct source. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I oppose it, what nobility does the notes on Trump's cover have over every other TIME winner. Are we going to write down how TIME referred to to Bush Sr by "The Two George Bushes" too? No, so we shouldn't do so with Trump. Archer Rafferty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2016

In the list of the winners, the notes column for the 1953 winner, Konrad Adenauer, says this: "In 1953, Adenauer was re-elected as Chancellor of Germany." That should be "Chancellor of West Germany." If the original is correct, then the notes column for the 1970 winner, Willy Brandt, needs "West" removed from this phrase, "As Chancellor of West Germany."

In the notes column for the 2014 winner, Ebola fighters, it says this, ""Ebola fighters" refers to health care workers who helped stop the spread of ebola virus disease during the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, including not only doctors and nurses, but also ambulance attendants, burial parties and others." The second occurrence of the word "Ebola" needs to be capitalized. Cjwiki70 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Got it. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Woman of the year

so... integrating women of the year? No? an example: Dorothy Townsend (23 Dec 1968). "Times woman of the year, Dorothy Wright Nelson, Dean of USC Law School, holds unique position". The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California. p. 49. Retrieved Nov 7, 2016. Smkolins (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you're requesting. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
That there seems to be an unnoted parallel history of women noted in an article using the modern gender neutral term without attempting to balance the history of awarding to women. That the women be noted. Smkolins (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
A designation that there have been four "women of the year" fails - read this [1] bottom left. Smkolins (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I've sent on the conflicting sources to Time Magazine (though their letter to the editor feature is broken on their website right now.) Smkolins (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Runner's Up column

Is there really any purpose in keeping the Runner's Up column? This article is about those chosen as TPY, not those who weren't chosen. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Text overlap

Remarkable number of edits without discussion.:) Anyhow, with narrow windows, the SHOW text overlaps the runners-up text in the runners-up column. I suggest that the runners-up text be removed leaving just the number. After all, the column title is runners-up. Comments? O3000 (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps even getting rid of the number and just showing the text could be done. However we could just remove the whole column. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
RS appear to think the info of interest, although removal would make mobile viewing easier. Showing the text would lengthen an already lengthy page. O3000 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Do the RS's include it just a news when the winner is announced or is it considered notable long-term. Showing the text was just a suggestion, if it will cause more problems then it would be best to just leave the number. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
People interested in who won something are often interested in who almost won. Changing to "7 [show]" provides the info to those that care without taking much space -- at least on desktops. O3000 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Time Person of the Year. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversial winners possible additions

Given that Trump has been accused of rape and/or sexual assault by multiple women should his 2016 win be considered controversial?

Another name that might be in the controversial winners section could be 2001 winner Rudolph Giuliani. He failed to protect the citizens of New York on 11 September 2001. He has also been accused of corruption. Maybe the citizens of New York would have been a more deserving winner in 2001.

Who should be added to to the controversial winners section Trump, Giuliani, both or neither? Mobile mundo (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t think we should be trying to evaluate which are or are not considered controversial by RS. I think it’s fine to include a few clearly obvious people, like Hitler, to describe the concept, the reasons that controversial winners exist, and the impact on Time itself – and that’s all. O3000 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Country column

Several problems with the country column. One, it seems very selective. Some seriously bad guys have their country. Lots of US guys. Obvious rows empty. People born in one country, but lived in others. Do it correctly, or not at all. Not at all would be my preference as what does country have to do with this? O3000 (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We've gone this long without a country column. Don't bother adding one. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
You should let this country column be added as give information to people. And, as for a lot of Americans being in the list, it is good to know when they were not Americans.Karmanyaah (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
A Rfc was held on this topic in the past & the consensus was to keep the countries/flags out. GoodDay (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the RfC? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
It's at Archive #5 & concerns Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t see the point of countries/flags. You can click the link to find information about a person, which is at times a bit muddled. Gandhi was born a British subject. Hitler was born in Austria-Hungary. Elizabeth is Queen of the 16 Commonwealth nations. John XXIII was born in Italy, not Vatican City. One of the Apollo 8 astronauts was born in Hong Kong. Kissinger was born in Germany. Obama (nevermind). O3000 (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth II was born in the United Kingdom, though. But, that's entire other topic ;) GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The RfC was against including countries, they should not be readded without justification. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
In agreement. The addition of countries will only cloud things. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wild Speculation of 2018 Person of the Year

There is a growing groundswell for the Internet Troll being the "person of the year" for 2018. 216.195.89.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Speculation is hearsay and cannot be confirmed. Please keep Wikipedia articles encyclopedic. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The deletion request appears to be either vandalism or specious. It was speedily closed as Keep within two hours or being opened. TJRC (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Deletion request was a mistake and has been withdrawn by requester. rchard2scout (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Incorrect caption/image

I do not have edit access, but the image at the top does not match its caption; can someone change the image to reflect the caption or vice versa? Q031406280 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The image is correct, but the caption was wrong. Lindbergh is there as the first person rewarded by Time magazine. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump was Time's person of the year 2016?

U.S. presidents section indicates Trump was not named time's person of the year. He was in 2016. Am I missing something obvious here? David587320 (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

NO ONE HAS BEEN ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

The Electoral Collage elects the president on December 14, 2020 not the popular vote in November. And the result is not offcial until January 6, 2021. Its premature to claim Biden and Harris have been elected especially when there is alleged fraud to be adjudicated yet. The US Supreme Court was has agreed to hear the case filed by Texas and 17 other states. Stop jumping the gun. Kewalaka1 (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Please change your heading to remove all caps. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Should the current annual cover be used?

Agree: As a reflection of Wikipedia's desire to be current on subjects, events, etc., I believe that the current cover of Time magazine's Person of the Year should always be updated by using the most current Person of the Year cover.

  • Disagree I don't think so, since the current image is enough to at least explain it. Image2012 (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Time_Person_of_the_Year/Archive_5&oldid=1091609896"