Talk:You (Time Person of the Year)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

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[edit]

"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]
  • It seems fine to me. The article credited you, generically, as an influential person due to the rise of websites with user-generated content, something which has only continued to be the case in years since; e.g. someone born in 2006 is now 18 years old, of prime age to be a TikTok star or whatever the aoomers are into now. jp×g🗯️ 08:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see where you're coming from but strongly disagree. You can argue that Time "awarded" Person of the Year to everyone that contributes user-generated content online, but you cannot argue that Time awarded POTY to everyone that has and will ever read this Wikipedia article. It's an objective fact that Time awarded "You" Person of the Year; it's not at all an objective fact that Time awarded the reader POTY.

    Furthermore, the encyclopedia should never directly refer to its readers with a word like "you". Per MOS:PRONOUN: "To maintain an objective and impersonal encyclopedic voice, an article should never refer to its editors or readers using I, my, we, us, our, or similar words". Thus, even if Time literally gave the award to everyone who has and will ever live, "You were" would still not be correct style.
    Loytra (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 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 12:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymously ?[edit]

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]

Proposed name change[edit]

Hello all. Reading through the comments, I realize there seemed to be an emerging consensus about deleting or renaming the page (first comment topic above), but nothing ever came of it.

I think the page should remain, but I propose a rename. The concept discussed in the article, as defined by the topic's main page, is an annual special issue of a magazine, not the person (or concept) itself. Thus, the title could be: 2006 Person of the Year Time Magazine issue. The first sentence of the lede could be tweaked to: The 2006 Person of the Year Time Magazine issue recognized "You" to represent the millions... Robincantin (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nijamuddin[edit]

Nijamuddin NIJAMJR (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"You." listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect You.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 16#You. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

biased[edit]

"and other wikis" thats biased. only wikipedia says these things cause the editors like wikis 93.135.33.119 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So true Loytra (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:You_(Time_Person_of_the_Year)&oldid=1216888697"