Template talk:Time Persons of the Year/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Persons

Persons? I think it should be either "People" or "Person". Both would make sense.193.179.97.170 (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Scientists/Women

Since my edit was reverted citing a lack of explanation, I thought I'd give one here. Listing every woman/scientist the magazine profiled in the respective Person of the Year editions is misleading. It suggests those specific people were the ones being acknowledged. In fact, Time explicitly states that they are merely representatives of a much wider group being recognised. In Time's own words: Although TIME selected and profiled a dozen remarkable women in various fields as symbolizing the new consciousness of women, it found the truly exceptional development to be the change in "the status of the everyday, usually anonymous woman, who moved into the mainstream of jobs, ideas and policymaking." [1], etc. - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 19:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting rationale – you remove all the notable and profiled scientists simply because you feel we should not take away the thunder of the "anonymous" scientists? Very sorry, but that is hardly convincing. Those scientists and women were profiled by Time in conjunction with their "Persons of the Year" and really should be in the navbar. And what's up with piping the commonly named and notable "Baby boomers"? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Time specifically called them "The Inheritors" [2]. You make out like I changed it because I felt bad for the anonymous people. I didn't. I changed it because it was wrong. - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 19:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I would have to disagree on all counts: 1) What matters is what their common name is and what Wikipedia calls them, i.e., "Baby boomers", 2) You are the one who called the full listing "misleading", which it is not. Your anonymous rationale seems to apply only to the women, not to the scientists, and 3) your change is from right to wrong. If I may, let me suggest:

This gives full recognition to those notable people who most definitely and assuredly deserve it! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There's really no need to be childish about it. I just want the template to be accurate, as I hope you do too. Do you list every notable person involved in the Hungarian revolution? Every notable baby boomer? No, because they aren't individuals, they are a huge and diverse group. The women and the scientists were both recognised for their contributions as a group of thousands and millions, not for the contributions of several individuals. Furthermore, if we should only use what we call them rather than what Time calls them, why do we have the "Hungarian Freedom Fighter" as it is? - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 20:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have altered the above suggested Navbar to show the name Time gives to Baby boomers. There is no need for personal attacks ("childish" comment). We do both want the Navbar to reflect accuracy and precision. We list the scientists and women because Time felt them to be notable enough for individual mention and profiling. Please give my suggestion above due consideration. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologise if my comment offended you, I just thought it was the most appropriate description of your facetious addition at the bottom of your prototype. I don't see the difference between [[Baby boomers]] ("The Inheritors") and [[Baby boomers|"The Inheritors"]]. They both say the same thing, the latter just does so in less space.

It strikes me that your argument here essentially just boils down to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Yes Betty Ford was Person of the Year for 1975. But so was Patty Hearst, and Lynette Fromme. Time singled out a few women because it couldn't interview half of the country. Time themselves specifically say it represents every American Woman. - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 20:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have given what I believe to be a proper and earnest argument for maintenance of the "status quo". I am going to change the template back to the status quo, once more, and then I will call for an RfC to settle this, since you obviously cannot see your way through to even acknowledge the compromise template I suggested with an objective view. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I will be happy to see and accept any consensus reached by an RfC. However, you must surely accept that no aspect of your suggestion offered any serious compromise on the actual issue... - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 20:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I support full enumeration.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

To editor TonyTheTiger: It may help significantly, then, if you would include your !vote to Oppose the removals in the next section below. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

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.

---

There has been a recent massive deletion of notable people from this template. The issue is whether or not we should let that deletion stand, or to maintain the template as it is, possibly with a little more detail to clarify the intent of Time magazine and Wikipedia. More detail can be found in the discussion above entitled "Scientists/Women". – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

For clarity... Contributors may either Oppose the deletion of names currently listed in parenthesis for 1960 and 1975 or they may Support their removal. - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 15:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, as nom, the mass deletion of notable people, whom Time felt were worthy of mention and profiling. I would not be opposed to limited clarification of points in question made by contributor HIGHFIELDS, who seems to feel that these people, who are considered notable by both Time and Wikipedia, are not worthy of mention in this Navbar template. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal of the individuals in parentheses for 1960 & 1975, for the reasons in the discussion above. Highlighting individuals suggests the magazine was acknowledging only those individuals - while Time clearly state they are merely a few representatives of vast groups being acknowledged. Including all of them is unnecessary, misleading and a waste of space - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 21:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Could somebody word the RfC a little clearly? It's difficult to tell, without reading individual opinions, what "oppose" and "support" actually imply. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

   Done (Sorry I was not clear, but I couldn't figure out how to word it without sounding biased toward my position.) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It did sound biased towards your position, so I've edited it slightly. Hopefully we can agree it is now more neutral - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 15:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support the removal of people within the category of a given "persons of the year" which the magazine itself says are just examples of its award recipient [group]. Regarding the argument in the discussion above that goes something like "we shouldn't remove these notable people just because there are other anonymous people who Time would include": Notability is completely irrelevant when the template is supposed to just provide the recipient of a yearly title that was itself already deemed notable. Perhaps if there were Template:Time Persons of the Year 1951-1975 with examples when a category of people is given. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal, per reasons already given by Rhododendrites. I could see something specific added to the article History of women in the United States because the template links to it for the 1975 award winners and it IS different than just one person being mentioned. But for the sake of this template, shorter is better. GRUcrule (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the RfC has expired, with clear support in the entries above, I intend to restore my changes to the template tomorrow - unless Paine objects again before then... - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 22:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I happily yield to consensus. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 07:51, 1 January 2014 (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.