Talk:Time Person of the Year/Archive 6

In future, bring proposals to talkpage, rather then boldly implement them.
Is there any particular reason, why editors tend to make big changes to this article, without proposing them to this talkpage first? GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? Without saying what, exactly, you're referring to, I'm not sure if you're referring to my inclusion of other categories (with sources), the online polls (also with sources), or the removal/addition of the decade table separators by other editors. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 00:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Big changes: Be it additions or deletions. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think addition like the online polls or the other categories do not belong on this page? Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 00:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove'em all, including the runners-up & column. All we need shown, are the annual winners. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you think they do not belong? Before we move to remove sourced content from this page, I'd like an explanation from you as to why. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 00:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All our readers need to know, is who the Time Person of the Year is. Nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the input of other editors before we do that. I am largely neutral in whether they stay or go even though I added the other categories, but I think others should have a say as to what this page should or should not include aside from the two of us. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 01:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Other categories" and especially "Online poll" sections seem to be relevant to the page, in my opinion. I will say that the online poll section should have a clear source for the statement "While many mistakenly believe the winner of the poll to be the Person of the Year", since I don't see evidence for that claim in the current citation link in that section. There's also two citations there that link to the same place. So it could do with a bit of cleanup, but I think better to improve what's there than remove it. - Odin (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Should we include all the "Person of the Year" covers in the table?
I would just like to know what you think about it. Image2012 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * From a cursory check, it looks like the covers currently used are in the public domain, while more recent covers are not. So I would say it would make sense to leave the current setup. - Odin (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Excising redundant renames
In the interest of "less is more", it's unnecessary to repeat each of the winners' names, e.g.:
 * 1927 – Charles Lindbergh
 * Lindbergh completed the first solo transatlantic flight in May 1927

One could consider this "serial redundancy". Simpler:
 * Completed the first solo transatlantic flight in May 1927

Technically (and I know many of you insist on this), the third column is the description of the person's achievement(s). With the person's name so clearly and immediately preceding it, the description is free to be… the description. ;?) I haven't presumed to make this list-long change myself, but suggest it here and encourage someone to implement it once an adequate number of WP redundancy-chasers have chimed in. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it could be done either way. A bit of redundancy is not always a bad thing though. Wikipedia has no space constraints like a printed publication, so we don't always need to maximize efficiency. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 14:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Feminism and Media 2.jpg