Talk:You (Time Person of the Year): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:40, 19 November 2019

Magazines Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 25, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Comment

Considering that Wikipedia editors are some of those who can be defined as "You", does this article go against the auto-bibliography and maybe avoid-self refs and other policies? (This was mentioned at least a little bit in the deletion discussion) Jason McHuff (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I declined the prize...so no, not really Kransky (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, considering the article is about a magazine, and "you" is in quotation marks and treated as a singular noun

Was that supposed to be a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.72.139 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this page is best merged with either the main Time Person of the Year article, or arguably the main You page. Having this page opens the door as an argument for any previous Time Person of the Year winner having their own page dealing with their Person of the Year accolade, regardless of the unusual abstract quality of this particular nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.242.94.19 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. I don't think anyone will come to WP looking for "You" and want to find this article. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ~ Benimation (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "4chan" italicised in the first paragraph? 123.176.119.19 (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about new "Contributors of User-generated Content" section that is clearly vandalism. (Batman? Really?) I undid it, and now a registered user just put it back. Help? 128.12.252.5 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subject/verb issue

"You were chosen in 2006..." or "You was chosen in 2006..."? This gets edited back and forth every once in a while, and I'd like to figure out which form is the best. After that, a simple comment in the prose should fix the edit warring. So, preferences and arguments for "were" vs "was"? ~Mable (chat) 09:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to compromise with

"You" was chosen in 2006...

since we're not speaking directly to the reader. Although one could argue that the reader was included in the POTY 2006 award, so we are speaking to them, this would be contrary to WP:TONE, which advises us to avoid addressing the reader in the second person. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reader is not necessarily included in this award, given that people born in 2006 are now 10 or 11, and are more and more likely to be one of the readers of the article. As such, though it's a little weird, I'd err towards "was". Aprotim (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed this discrepancy. Was thinking of opening a Language Refdesk thread asking what was best. Looked at the article after seeing someone claiming to have listed being Time Magazine's 2006 Person of the Year on his or her resume. Heh. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on You (Time Person of the Year). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090406075739/http://www.newassignment.net:80/blog/david_cohn/dec2006/19/behind_time_maga to http://www.newassignment.net/blog/david_cohn/dec2006/19/behind_time_maga

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymously ?

The second sentence of the lede currently reads:

This award recognized the millions of people who anonymously contribute...

(my emphasis) Surely a mistake? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "pseudonymously" is a more accurate word? It is anonymous in that most people don't use their real names online. But if anonymous is taken to mean "no form of identification whatsoever", then it's pseudonymous rather than anonymous, as people are instead identifying themselves by using false names, or usernames. Then again, what about websites such as 4chan where everyone is marked as Anonymous? – numbermaniac 06:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 :since we're not speaking directly to the reader. Although one could argue that the reader was included in the POTY 2006 award, so we are speaking to them, this would be contrary to [[WP:TONE]], which advises us to avoid addressing the reader in the second person. — <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:1px 0 0 1px">[[User:This, that and the other|This, that]]</span> and <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:0 1px 1px 0">[[User talk:This, that and the other|the other<small> (talk)</small>]]</span> 13:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 ::The reader is not necessarily included in this award, given that people born in 2006 are now 10 or 11, and are more and more likely to be one of the readers of the article. As such, though it's a little weird, I'd err towards "was". [[User:Aprotim|Aprotim]] ([[User talk:Aprotim|talk]]) 21:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
+::I also noticed this discrepancy.  Was thinking of opening a Language Refdesk thread asking what was best.  Looked at the article after seeing someone claiming to have listed being Time Magazine's 2006 Person of the Year on his or her resume.  Heh. [[Special:Contributions/173.228.123.207|173.228.123.207]] ([[User talk:173.228.123.207|talk]]) 17:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 == External links modified ==