Jump to content

Talk:Time Person of the Year/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Meaning of flags

In respond to Miesianiacal's concerns about the clarity of the 'flag/country' criteria. It's quite simple, this article uses birth country & country where person lives. For Elizabeth II? that's  United Kingdom on both counts. Also, we go by what the Time Magazine's sources show. Interestingly, Time Magazine has a lot of pull in this article. I wonder why? ;) GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: I'm going to assume good faith that Miesianicals' tagging of this article's debated section, was in no way an attempt to delegitimize this Rfc or distract from this Rfc :) GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know id it's consistent, but I agree that country of birth and country of residence at the time is the most used. Also, if the country of residence is a successor country of the country of birth, then that's used. So Stalin gets only USSR, not Russia and USSR. And that works for me. If somebody wants something else, this can be discussed. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
In agreement :) GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I would also suggest removing Hungary for the 1997 entry. Sure, he was born there, but I don't think he retained the citizenship after fleeing the country. Going by that logic, we could also add the Russian Empire for Stalin which brings me to another article. Puerto Rico for one, isn't even a country. And adding birth countries to some of them seems a tad bit excessive. It's ok in my book if the birth country had some profound impact on the authors writing, but most of these are just trivial (Russian Empire, Austria - Hungary, Ottoman Empire). I think that needs some consideration. Also another entry has Germany with West in brackets instead of just West Germany in the column. --Killuminator (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
USSR was a successor state to Russia, hence not having Russia makes perfect sense, as it's otherwise is like having two flags for what in practice is more or less teh same country. I have no strong opinions on this though. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
If that is the criteria, a) entries in the list don't follow it and b) there's no explanation of such in the article to help readers understand what the flags represent. A bigger question, though, is: who decided the flags are to indicate country of birth and country of residence? And what defines "residence" in this context? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll let others answer your concerns, as (regrettably) you & I go together like water & oil :) PS - Since this discussion has been broken away (via your addition of a 'new section' heading) from the Rfc? It's likely something we can look into after the Rfc is closed. Of course, that's up to the others. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
a) Yes they do, at least for the most part. b) No, but we can fix that. c) It may not have been a organized official decision, but just common sense? --OpenFuture (talk) 03:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say the criteria were nonsensical; but, there are others that would also be considered common sense. So, why these two in particular? The choice seems either random or designed to satisfy someone's obsessive promotion of a personal pov.
I'm glad we can both see these criteria aren't followed throughout the list. And, yes, the explanation can be added. It seems, though, the first thing to settle is the question I asked immediately above and, following immediately on that, the still unanswered matter of the definition of "residence" in this context. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Your reply seems to indicate that you read the exact opposite of what I wrote. I don't think that's a constructive situation to be in. Stop being so WP:BATTLE-prone, drop the WP:STICK and step back from this topic for a while and let it cool down. Then maybe we can get somewhere. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
You haven't answered the questions. Though, you have every right not to and excuse yourself from this discussion. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue has now been clarified. Is this enough, or do we need to put a note/comment on the article as well? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the Rfc (they last 30-days) is ongoing. We'll likely have to wait & see :) GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, but that's only for what flags to use for Elizabeth II. The tag for clarification of the flags has no RfC that I can find. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that. You're quite correct. PS- I believe I need new glasses :) GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed it. Where, exactly, is the clarification? I see no change to the article and no answers to my questions here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The question is if we should update the article as well, and in that case in which way, by a lead intro or by adding a comment or something else.--OpenFuture (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, you finally answered that question in an Edit comment. Couldn't you have answered it here instead, and then this would be over with? No, instead you created an RfC to absolutely no effect except wasting peoples time. WP:DROPTHESTICK. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth II's Notes column

In the Notes column of this article, concerning Elizabeth II. Should we change to United Kingdom with a footnote for the six other realms? I ask this, because the Time Magazine source concentrates fully on her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
If not fully? then definitely overwhelmingly. Of course, others can check over the source & decide for themselves :) GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
But this is just the same question as the RfC but formulated differently. My answer is still no. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The Rfc deals with the Country column, where's this one deals with the Notes column :) I won't be making this into an Rfc, as I don't consider the notes column as concerning as the flag/country column. GoodDay (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Criteria for flags

Contribute to the related discussion or wait for it to close before opening another RfC please. This discussion is now closed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 11 March 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.

{{rfc|bio|hist|media|pol|rfcid=A3A13ED}}

What should the flags in the list convey? 04:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

a) The recipient's country of birth,
b) The recipient's country of residence at the time of their designation as a person of the year,
c) Country or countries in or to which the recipient made their notable contribution(s)
d) Any combination of two or more of the above (and which they should be)
e) remove all flags/countries

  • a and c It's pertinent to communicate what country a recipient was born in, especially when it differs from the country or countries in or to which they made their notable contribution(s). A recipient's country of residence is typically the one in which they carried out what they were recognized by Time for, but not always, and it is the person's actions that matter, not their place of residence. Hence, the country or countries in or to which they made their contribution(s) should be shown. e would be my second choice. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • d - It will not make a difference what we pick except possibly for a few cases. In none of the above combinations will Miesianiacal be able to add his beloved Canada to the listing of Elizabeth II as she had made no notable contribution to Canada up to her coronation. This is a frivolous and pointless RfC about an issue that has already been solved. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from unsubstantiated bad faith accusations and restrict the subject of your remarks to the question posed. That said, if you choose option d, you should elaborate on which criteria you think should be employed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • INVALID. AUTHOR OR ANY UNINVOLVED EDITOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CLOSE THIS RFC. I would do it myself, but I made a !vote involving myself in the above RFC before I saw this one. This RFC is potentially in conflict with the above RFC. Furthermore the current leading position (5) in that RFC would make this RFC a waste of time. Either is potentially disruptive. This may have been opened in good faith, but it was a poor idea to start this one before the outcome of the other one was clear. Alsee (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
P.S. WP:Consensus#FORUMSHOP if someone wants a specific policy base for a preemptive close. But I'd say this is obvious IAR to avoid wasted time / disruption / conflict as the fundamental reason for preemptively close. Alsee (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I've asked for clarification at the Rfc page & requested an administrator's eyes. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
PS - FWIW: I don't know what the intent was behind the opening of this second Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Seeing as you need reminding, I remind you of WP:AGF. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • a, b, which in the case of Elizabeth II? would mean the United Kingdom. We must keep in mind, that this article is based on individuals & sourced by Time Magazine. Third option - e, which would remove potential PoV disputes over countries/flags :) GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • e Remove all of these goofy little flag icons. They add nothing of value to the encyclopedia and just get some editors all riled up and tangled up in endless debates to no good purpose whatsoever. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree, wholeheartedly, with Cullen328. Remove them entirely. There's not really a reason for their inclusion in this article (not a compelling one, at least), and little nationality-related tables / additions like this are usually a magnet for POV battleground editing. Not saying it's the case with this article, but many such additions are often started for said reasons. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • e 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)

Discussion

I'm not sure if it's best to open up a 'possible' conflicting Rfc, while the original Rfc is still in progress. What do others think? GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that's confusing, but in practice the previous one has reached a consensus so it's perhaps not a problem now anyway. However, the main problem with this is that it's just Miesianiacal way of battling for battlings sake. He could have solved this by actually participating in the discussion he started recently, and answering questions. Now this will needlessly drag on for 30 days. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I've contacted Wikipedia:Requests for comment, for clarification on this issue :) GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 10 March 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.

Ping Cullen328 and Quinto Simmaco. You appear to be the only editors affected. This RFC was closed as a duplicate. Your responses may not be included unless you post in the previously existing RFC higher on this page. Alsee (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Alsee, for bringing this to my/our attention, as well as potentially that of the eventual closer. It's much appreciated. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If I'm understanding Miesianiacal's explanation here? he felt the previous Rfc was a done deal, with the result being  United Kingdom. If this is so? then the opening of the second Rfc, would've had the potential result of overturning the presumed result of the first Rfc, via eliminating the entire 'country column'. Perhaps others can figure this out, because I'm quite confused about it. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and as you can see, it worked. I'm not sure that he'll get the outcome he wants, but after posting the new RFC there was an influx of !votes to remove the flags. So the consensus clearly was overturned. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose all of these flags here. I decline to wait since I'm not watchlisting this ridiculous trainwreck. None of the [ab]uses of flag icons on this page are in agreement with MOS:ICONS, so simply remove them. We do not have to "re-litigate" this sort of thing on every single page that someone wants to festoon with cutesy little pictures that are not helpful nor have any clear and unambiguous signification in the context to our readers. We have a guidelines for a reason, specifically to prevent having to rehash the same tired ideas over and over and over again every time someone with a bad idea things they have a good one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You've posted in the wrong place :) This 'second Rfc' is closed. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll re-open this RfC or start it anew soon after the other not-a-duplicate one is closed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please reassess Rfc: Elizabeth II close

@OpenFuture: please consider reverting your close of the Rfc: Elizabeth II. Yes, it was unorthodox, BOLD, and you were WP:INVOLVED, but more to the point, I believe you may have missed something in your consensus assessment. I didn't notice it previously, but I went back and examined support for Option 5 – including alternate support other than as first choice preference. Unless I missed something, I see 15 of 19 editors, or 79% expressing some level of support for Option 5: GoodDay, Killuminator, OpenFuture, Moxy, Cordless Larry, Chipmunkdavis, Peacemaker67, Alsee, Aircorn, Mojoworker, Quinto Simmaco, Cullen328, SMcCandlish, trackratte, and Kaldari. While Miesianiacal "wouldn't fuss much if it were implemented. Please reassess your close and revert it or discuss further. Then we can find a proper closer, perhaps MSGJ. The new RfC you started doesn't seem to be gaining traction, and frankly, why wait another 30 days when it seems we've already achieved consensus? Mojoworker (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Option 5 was the most popular one, but NOT within the topic of the post, plus the fact that most positive Option 5 votes came in one big bunch, which I find strange, plus the fact that I supported it although it was not my preferred option at voting time, plus the fact that only around 50% had it as their preferred option; means that I decided it was prudent to make a new RfC explicitly about the country column. If the support for Option 5 was real, this RfC will generate a clear unambiguous consensus. I will most definitely not close that new RfC as "Remove" after a few days with only a 3:2 vote, which is what you in practice is asking. An administrator is of course welcome to do it, but I can not reasonably make a second involved non Admin close of an RfC in that situation. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
You should not have decided anything as you were involved. The only thing I find strange in this is your behaviour. At a minimum you should have notified the !voters on this new rfc. Now we have a third RFC on this topic and your closing can only be seen as filibustering. AIRcorn (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Cheezuz, keep your pants on there. WP:DEADLINE --OpenFuture (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear, but I'm not asking you to close it some other way, I'm asking you to revert your close and let it happen according to established process. Mojoworker (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Somebody had to close it. None of the administrators were responding to the close request, which was made 'bout 3 weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Somebody had to close it? Not really. Stuff gets archived without action all the time, and if editors don't care enough to ride herd on it, the proposal dies with a whimper. Mojoworker (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
PS - Why not consider the current Rfc, as a decider between the top 2 options (5 & 6) from the previous Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Who's to say that the new RfC gets closed any more promptly? It's Wikipedia's dirty little secret that there aren't enough admins to do all the work required – especially if it takes time and reasoned thought – yet there is still too much push-back to deal with the situation until it eventually becomes a crises. Mojoworker (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: these comments were removed from !voting section and moved here: OpenFuture should not have wasted our time with an involved close. (Note: I would classify it as an impatient, well intentioned, overcautious close rather than malicious or combative. But it's an improper close nonetheless.) As an experienced closer, here's my close analysis of the RFC:

1,2,3,4,7 are dead in the water, none with more than 3 favorable mentions.
Moxy Larr Mojo Airc Alse Peac CMD Kald Trac ranked 5 as their uniquely first choice. That's a 53% block right off the bat. Add Kill who ambiguously ranked them as tied. The only viable alternative to 5 is 6, SMcC and Mies explicitly ranked 5 above 6. At this point I give 11/16 = 71% consensus for 5. Furthermore Open ranked 5 second, Goodday ranked 5 as acceptable, and Alex's strikethrough strongly suggests a favorable view of 5, possibly their second choice? That's 14/17 willing to accept 5, with only 2/17 not mentioning it and potentially strongly opposed. That is a solid outcome for a seven-way RFC.
P.S. Anyone interested in the subject of resolving multi-way voting outcomes should read Condorcet method. Under the most critical assumptions (Kill ranks 5 last in their list and everyone ranks each non-5 as high as possible) 5 beats any other option by a minimum of 11-to-6. Alsee (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC) (edit: I missed Trac)
See above - How about we allow this Rfc to continue. Consider it a runoff between the top 2 candidates of the previous (jungle) Rfc :) GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, 50% preferred to remove the Country column. And 50% preferred NOT to remove the country column. I refuse to call that a clear consensus, and I stand by that. Therefore I started this RfC, with the expectation that there will be a clear consensus to remove the column. I apologize profusely for my insistence to not close this according to my own opinion, but start an RfC instead. I'm terribly sorry I'm not biased or a dick and not trying to game the system. My bad. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say you should have closed it in line with your own opinion. I said you shouldn't have closed it. Waiting for a close would have been faster than another another month long RFC, and would most likely have avoided umpteen people redebating it. And if this RFC somehow doesn't remove the column then we wind up with ANOTHER another RFC on what to put in the column, which will just recreates the last consensus to remove the column. Alsee (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, as noted, we had already waited three weeks. And also as noted, the outcome is way less clear than you want it to be. But yes, if we decide to keep it we will certainly see some of the people who can't drop the stick create an RfC on exactly the rules should be. Which is one of the two reasons I changed my mind and now prefer to remove it. The other one being the stated: I think it's emphasis nationality where it should not be. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with a second round of voting with only those 2 options neck in neck as long as it doesn't take ages. One week tops and if you are late, then I am sorry but you were notified. I'd rather not use that Condorcet method. I'm not familiar with it's flaws and advantages, but unlike elections for parliaments and the like, this won't consume any money, will take relatively little time if we stick to a proposed week and only has two options, so we don't have to weigh preferences and alternative votes. Regarding the sudden influx of mentioned users, I really hope there wasn't any hunt for votes, but I'm not interested in investigating such claims. That's my take on the subject. --Killuminator (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture, the fact that the consensus outcome was not the question asked in the RfC certainly has precedent, since a discussion once opened, can broaden (much like WP:BOOMERANG at ANI). A similar example that SMcCandlish might remember was WT:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive_14#Formula_1, where the question asked was about the "use of flags to represent a driver's or team's nation in Formula 1 articles", and the discussion was closed much more broadly as "consensus to use the national flag icon of an athlete in an international competition". Now there was the complication in that instance that the closer was asked, and promised to clarify his reasoning, but after several months he resigned under a cloud without doing so. But that close still stands today. I should state explicitly that I think your close was done in good faith, but was manifestly poor form, and an experienced editor such as yourself should know better. So we're now left with somewhat of a mess and several options. The most collegial was to ask you to revert your out-of-process close – which you have apparently rejected. I'm holding out hope that you misinterpreted what I was asking of you above, so I'll ask you again to consider reverting your close and letting someone else close it within process. Otherwise, the next step would be to request review at WP:AN and/or discuss the close here to see if there is consensus to overturn it. Finally, we could chalk it up to a bad idea done with good intentions and wait another 4 weeks to see what happens with the new RfC – and hope we're not still waiting for a close 7 weeks from now. Mojoworker (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If we can agree, that the previous Rfc expired 3 weeks ago & nobody made any changes to the country column since that expiration, then (again) we can consider the current Rfc as a runoff. BTW - It's odd that since the last Rfc expired, nobody bothered to eliminate the 'country column'. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

RfCs don't simply "expire" or disappear after 30 days, they are simply delisted, which is to say the call for further comment goes silent. They are not "expired" or decided until closed. So, it isn't odd at all, but is in following normal practice since the issue is clearly contentious enough to have a protracted RfC, so further editing in the disputed area would simply be disruptive. trackratte (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I was getting the impression that these last 3-weeks with no changes, was a developing silent consensus for keeping the 'country column with flags' & using  United Kingdom, for Elizabeth II's entry. Many folks chime in (which is good), but that's all. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing "protracted" about it. I agree further editing in the disputed area would be disruptive, and I note that you went ahead and did that ANYWAY. Why? I closed it so we could move ahead. I did not make a controversial close or decision, but instead noted the obvious: There was no clear consensus, and we needed to make a new, more focused RfC. Which I did. What exactly is your problem with that? Please undo your reopen. I'm not going to edit war with you, I will plead to your common sense and sanity. Why do we need ANOTHER complicated mess on this topic? Why can't we just have a simple little RfC to get a clear consensus? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Mojoworker: "So we're now left with somewhat of a mess and several options." - There is absolutely no mess. The is an RfC going on, where we will know if there is a consensus to delete the column or not. I have no idea how you think that's messy. Now if I backed out that close THAT would be messy. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If I understand many of you. Ya'll feel there's 2 concurrent Rfcs in progress. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well. There is, since someone thought it was a fantastic idea to reopen to previous one. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

(Excuse my confused edits on this point, I misread some things. Here is the summary:) There was not a clear consensus to remove the columns. I therefore created an RfC on the issue. If somebody else would have closed it to remove, I would have contested that, not because I disagree, but because that would have been an incorrect close. Yes, see, I can see around my biases. And then so can you. I'm not going to backtrack, if anyone here is determined that we should not have a clear consensus, then please by all means, go to an admin noticeboard and take up this issue. Don't forget to say that you absolutely do not want a clear consensus on this issue, but want to force through your opinion, whatever that is. ;-) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm still hoping the folks will treat the Rfc you've opened, as being a runoff. Keep the country-column with flags (result - UK flag/UK for Elizabeth II). Keep the country-column without flags (result - UK for Elizabeth II) or Delete country-column entirely (result - everybody looses flag/country), very clear cut. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should we remove the country column?

Withdrawn because people here are unreasonable POV-pushers who absolutely have to fight about nothing. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 12 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.

Should we remove the country column on Time Person of the Year? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

We could still keep the country column, without the flags though. Couldn't we? GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I still think that emphasizes nationality for no reason. It's Person of the Year, not country. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
If the 'country column' is removed. I'll open up an Rfc on the Notes column, concerning Elizabeth II's entry. But, that's for another time :) GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove- repeat from abovr - not sure why we have flags or country 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. I believe its up to those "voting" for flag icons to show how going against our guideline is helpful for our readers (no guideline thus far from the I like it side). --Moxy (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
How about keeping the country column, but removing the flags? GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Country should be in the notes if relevant ...not a column all to its-self....country has nothing to do with the recognition. Moxy (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
In the case of Elizabeth II, the Notes column should have 'United Kingdom' with a footnote for the other six countries. This is keeping with 1952 source, which concentrates on the United Kingdom. Anyways, I reckon that's something to discuss at a latter date :) GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove – it's irrelevant for an individual award where the recipient is not representing a country. 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) 05:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the column, remove the flags. The information is pertinent, especially since it can be sorted by it on command. The flags serve not encyclopedic purpose and are just distracting. Their inclusion here is against MOS:FLAGS. See snowball RfC against inclusion of flags in a similar context, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove For the same reasons as I mentioned in the two previous RFCs. AIRcorn (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove per my vote and the outcome of the previous RFC. NOTE: I have moved my objection to the close, my rationale for the outcome of that RFC, and comments in response, down to the discussion section. Alsee (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove per OpenFuture and MOS:FLAG. All the arguments about people's nationality here are pointless. Their nationality is not relevant to the article. Kaldari (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I find information about the background of these people (well, mostly people) useful information, it fuels me with curiosity in addition to what they achieved. This column gives me a general overview of such things and use of country columns isn't really unusual for articles like these (Nobel recipients use it as well). --Killuminator (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove While potentially informational, they aren't absolutely necessary and, in the absence of any clear criteria for which flag/country or flags/countries should be used for an individual, it's better they simply go in order to remove confusion due to inconsistency and bias.
What bias are you referring to? GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
(Interesting OpenFuture is allowed to mount a second RfC while a prior one is still ongoing but OpenFuture and his allies balked when someone else did the same thing. Something to ponder.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't ongoing at the time. Somebody must have reopened it, I will investigate. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Just to clarify: I would have no problems keeping the country column without the flags. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. This discussion seems to have quickly lost focus. The RfC itself asked about whether the country column should be kept—there was nothing in the request that asked us to consider the flag icons. As to the column itself, I note that the list articles on the Nobel Prize laureates all have a column for country, and those articles have all achieved Featured List status. This is true not just for the Peace Prize, but also for the science-based prizes in physics, chemistry and medicine. The various Nobel lists are not consistent in their use of flag icons (some use them, some don't). Nor are they completely consistent in identifying the appropriate "country" (some look just to the period in which the awarded work was performed, others also look to country of birth, if different). But despite these differences, they all consider the country to be useful information. To those who do want the country column eliminated in this article, it would be helpful if we could get some rationale as to why the identification of country is considered appropriate in the Featured Lists for the Nobel prizes, but not here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • The fact that people who want to keep the flags keep trying to dodge the flags issue does not prevent commenters here from reaffirming that we have an entire guideline of consensus against abusing flag icon decoration in this manner.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Wasn't the original issue about some putative bias if we used just UK for Liz II ? Suppose we remove the flags. The phrase United Kingdom would still remain and that was the original issue, not including other realms like Canada, Australia etc. --Killuminator (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
        • It's perfectly okay to point out "problem B also exists" when someone raises a "there is problem A" concern.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
          Absolutely. But you don't, in a vote, put "Which painting is most beautiful" as an equal option to "burn all the paintings". Because that means a split vote on the which painting is most beautiful" leads to them all being burnt. The various ways of making complicated runoff calculations firstly needs to be stated up front in an election so people know about them, secondly, they are made for elections. When you choose between people or parties, what is more or less equal options. They aren't applicable here. Hence, we needed a separate RfC on removing the column. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Time_Person_of_the_Year/Archive_4&oldid=1090583438"