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.

The country column in the article for Elizabeth II's entry. Which version should we go with.

• 1) No countries or flags, with footnote explaining why
• 2)  United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms
• 3) No countries or flags, but showing Commonwealth realms
• 4)  United Kingdom  Canada  Australia  New Zealand  Ceylon  Pakistan  South Africa
• 5) Delete the country column from the article. Article is based on the individuals & not their country. It also removes dispute, over which of the other 5 options should be implemented.
• 6)  United Kingdom
• 7) United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms [i.e., same as #2, without the flag]

GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

• Options 6, 2, 7 or 5, in that order of prerference. Strongly oppose 1, 3 & 4. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4 Multiple countries has precedence in the list: Pope John XXIII, The Peacemakers, Pope John Paul II, David Ho, Andrew Grove, The Good Samaritans, Pope Francis) and there's enough height in EIIR's row to accomodate. Also okay with 3 and then 1. Not so supportive of 5, but wouldn't fuss much if it were implemented. Strongly oppose 2; separates the UK from the rest of the Commonwealth realms for a reason unapparent to any reader and, as such, is misleading. Also unclear by way of linking to the article Commonwealth realms; a reader would have to study that article to know which countries EIIR was queen of in 1952. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)}}

A moratorium should be imposed on GoodDay conducting RfCs on this same topic in multiple places in quick succession, it not simultaneously. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)}}

If you don't like them, then don't participate :) Anyways, this is the last Rfc started by me, on this general topic, for the rest of Elizabeth II's life & reign. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"If you don't like them..." Straw man. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Options 2, 4, 5 and 6 are fine with me, not necessarily in that order. I want to see some more input from other users. Option 6 is a new addition and a modified version of Option 2 added to reflect recent comments. --Killuminator (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 6 (UK only), or possibly option 5. She's the queen of many countries, but she is from UK. Are we really supposed to have a flag for every citizenship? That's not how it's done for others, it's rather the notable countries. Stalin is shown as Soviet Union, even though he was born in the Russian Empire, as an example. The only others that have multiple flags are people who are born in one country, but did their notable work as a citizen of another, and that hardly applies here. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture:, I find your argument unclear. It's implied countries/flags should represent where people are "from"; yet, it seems the USSR and its flag are okay for Stalin, even though he was born in pre-Soviet Russia. What, then, does "from" mean, if not where one was born? Are you saying Stalin's entry is presently incorrect or incomplete?

Further, where they did their "notable work" is mentioned as a criteria. "Notable" it entirely subjective, though; what is notable work and what isn't? Does being queen and performing the associated duties not meet the definition of "notable work"? Does being involved in a country's constitutional evolution, national unity, exercise of sovereignty, and major state events not qualify as "notable work"?

More clarification is needed.

(Additionally, citizenship isn't relevant to Elizabeth II; she holds none, except maybe EU citizenship. I doubt anyone would support the EU and its flag in EIIR's row.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The only reason I could think of to include all flags was that she was a citizen of these countries. Since there is apparently a serious debate on whether she is or not (I searched for it) I now see absolutely no reason to include any other flag than UK. But no, I do not think being coronated in UK counts as "notable work" in countries that she doesn't even seem to have visited. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Other than the irrelevance of citizenship, I still don't understand your reasoning. Nobody mentioned the coronation. I asked what qualifies as "notable work", since it's the term you used. I gave a general list of things Elizabeth II has done for Canada that I think meets the definition of "notable work" (it's notable enough to have been documented and studied). But, as I said, "notable" is subjective. So, how dies "notable work" function as a criteria for which countries/flags to place next to an individual? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Everything about this is subjective, that's why we have a discussion. Had Elizabeth done those things for Canada in 1952? Because that's the year we are talking about here. Time seems to have selected her because she was a "of a fresh young blossom on roots that had weathered many a season of wintry doubt. The British (my emphasis), as weary and discouraged as the rest of the world in 1952, saw in their new young Queen a reminder of a great past... and dared to hope that she might be an omen of a great future." The full article doesn't seem to exist online, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm under the impression we're trying to establish what should go next to Elizabeth II and why, and whether Elizabeth II should be unique, should follow what's done for the other individuals in the list, of vice versa.

No, I suppose she hadn't done those things as queen in 1952. But, along that line, she hadn't done anything as queen for the UK, either (she hadn't even had her coronation). The only really significant (subjective, I know) thing she did was became queen, which happened in all her then-realms, not just the UK.

I'm not sure what the relevance is of the article referring to the weariness of the British. It doesn't negate any of the facts or render them irrelevant to this matter. Nothing similar seems to have governed the choices of country/flag or countries/flags used for other persons in this list. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Time doesn't seem to have agreed with you that all she did was to become queen. Ah well.

I obviously think she should *not* be unique, you would need a very strong argument for that. I have no idea why you say "Nothing similar seems to have governed the choices" in other cases. Explain in that case *what* governed the choices in other cases. Is it the country of birth? Then Elizabeth should have a UK flag only. Is it the country of residence? Then Elizabeth II would have a UK flag only. Is it the country she did whatever she did to become person of the year? Then she should have a UK flag. Is it her citizenship? Then apparently she should have no flag at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Her becoming queen is exactly why she was chosen.

Fair enough if you don't think she should be unique in the list. I'd rather she not be, either. As you've noted, the countries/flags paired with people on this list are the those with which they were recognisably associated. As Elizabeth was Person of the Year because she became queen, this list should then recognise the fact she became queen not just of the UK. And if there's anyone missing a flag/country, by that same criteria, that omission should be rectified. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Claiming that she was chosen solely because she became a Queen seems equally insulting to Time Magazine and to the Queen. Notice the lack of other heads of state in this list. And the quote I posted earlier shows clearly that this honor was not bestowed upon her just because she became Queen, but because how she had acted.

I do understand that you are proud of both your country and your Queen, I would be too if I was you. But your desperation to get the Canadian flag into the list doesn't change the fact that this would mean treating Elizabeth II differently to others in this list, solely with the aim to have more Canadian flags. I don't think that's a good enough reason, and that said, I will stop this argumentation. My opinion has not changed. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The whole matter of why she was chosen is speculative and, as such, is not important. But, you should refrain from making bad faith accusations. It is not insulting in the least to say the only globally significant thing Elizabeth did in 1952 was become queen (which was the catalyst for all the news stories about a new, young queen (and mother), speculation, and fashion stories).

Also, please don't make false insinuations about my motives. This isn't about decorating a list with my favourite flags. It's about presenting as much of the pertinent and accurate information as possible in a manner that adheres at least to Wikipedia policy such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. Readers shouldn't be misled by way of missing information. And multiple countries next to EIIR being a different treatment for her is patently false. I don't even understand why you'd say so when you've indicated you're perfectly aware other entries have multiple countries/flags in their rows. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Howdy Openfuture. In other words, she was born in the UK, lives in the UK, her coronation was in the UK & so it's best to use the  United Kingdom. Am I understanding this correctly? GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Also Openfuture. If we had a copy of the 1952 Time magazine 'person of the year'. I'm quite confident, it's mostly (if not exclusively) about Elizabeth II's role as Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You asked for it, pretty much exclusively mentioned as Queen of Great Britain. --Killuminator (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I went through it & yep, it's very much exclusively Britain. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

And it even starts with explaining that she didn't become person of the year just because she became a queen, which kills *that* argument. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really, as the segment, despite how it starts, ends up only covering her becoming queen, the events around it, and the effects of it.

Regardless, how does any of that negate the fact Elizabeth II was queen of more than just the UK in 1952? How does it align with the others in this list who have more than one country/flag; do their TIME write-ups give absolute equal coverage to each of the countries next to their names? How much is enough? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, one thing is sure: They were not Monarchs of those countries. The flags are all as far as I can tell, the country the person was born in or lived in, which is frequently the same, or in some cases successor states (in which case only the successor state flag is shown). The only persons who have multiple flags are Popes, Andres Grove and David Ho. You still, despite much prodding, has not given one single reason to treat Elizabeth II differently. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"The only persons who have multiple flags are Popes, Andres Grove and David Ho. You still, despite much prodding, has not given one single reason to treat Elizabeth II differently." Well, there must have been some big misunderstanding along the way. I thought I'd been quite clear: It's acceptable to treat Elizabeth II the same way. Popes, Andres Grove, and David Ho can have multiple countries/flags, so can she. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Good, then we agree, we treat her the same way as everybody else, and give her one flag for the country where she is born, and one flag for the country where she lives. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Except, you've changed the goalposts. You said those who had more than one flag were "born in one country, but did their notable work as a citizen of another". Of course the citizenship bit is irrelevant to Elizabeth II. But, otherwise, showing the countries of which she became queen in 1952 follows the rest of the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not different goalposts, that's a different and more accurate wording of pretty much the same thing, that has the benefit of also being relevant to Elizabeth II. But let's take country of birth and citizenship then. For Elizabeth that is, lets see: Country of Birth: UK. Citizenships: Oh, look, none! Yes, I'm getting sarcastic. No matter what we decide should apply to this table, the end result is the same: Elizabeth gets one flag: UK. WP:DROPTHESTICK. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "born in one country, but did their notable work as a citizen of another" is not the same thing as "one flag for the country where [they were] born, and one flag for the country where [they live]". Elizabeth II was born in a country and notable work as queen of others. So, we agree (before you moved the goalposts, that is). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No, she had in 1952 not done any notable work as queen in other countries. We've been over that argument already, and you even agreed. Why are you dragging up old arguments we already are done with? What can possibly be the purpose of that, except attempting to wear people out and making them frustrated? And you still haven't come up with one single argument for why we should treat Elizabeth II differently from others. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agreed she hadn't done much of anything as queen by 1952, given she became queen in 1952. She did as much in the UK as in her other countries. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Birthplace & where she lives. I do believe that's the UK, on both counts. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right, that's not what you want. You want Elizabeth II to be treated *differently* from everybody else. But you have no arguments why. And you are in fact by now the only one that argues for this, everyone else in the Survey is OK with option 6. I think we have a clear consensus now. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• UK Only or Option 5Option 6 - Looking at the source TIME refers to her only as "the monarch of Great Britain" hence that is the reason she was "Man of the Year". Constitutionally, she may be the Queen of many countries but monarchists argue that those titles are separte and individual and it was only her ascendency as Queen of the United Kingdom that was of particular interest to TIME and for which she received the designation from TIME. Otherwise, why not also include the flags for Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man? Alexander's Hood (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Options 2 or 6 The article should list the country of residence or that most associated with the person, there is no need to mess with explaining technicalities. Agree with OpenFuture above. Reywas92^Talk 01:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 5 not sure why we have flags 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.-- Moxy (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you recommending that we delete all the countries, aswell? GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes....this list is made up of people who have been internationally recognized for their individual (be it good or bad) contributions to the world (mainly news headlines). The articles in "Time magazine" about these people do not infer that their country of origin had anything to do with the reason for being named "person of the year". Yes the articles mention country ..but it is in passing...as in a bio titbit....not relevant to make a list here. -- Moxy (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Just checking, per clarification on your preference :) GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

In cases like this I believe its up to those "voting" for flag icons to show how going against our guideline is helpful for our readers. Can someone explain how a link to Taiwan with a nice flag icon with help me understand more about David Ho that is not on his bio page? -- Moxy (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

That guideline mentions improved navigation. They really make it easier for me to browse the list especially for non US inclusions. With mere words, I would have to get closer to the monitor and keep track of words more carefully. The flags make it much easier for me at least since they stand out much more than words. --Killuminator (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Can I vote for another option not listed? I would suggest Option 6 the British flag with the addition of the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom. As Sovereign, the Queens Standard is the only flag to fly over the palace while the queen is in residence. The exception being when the Union Jack was raised in tribute to the late Diana, for "the peoples princess". This would be similar to the Pope, who has both the Italian flag and the flag of Vatican City. (Actually a case could be made for removing the Italian flag on the Pope's listings as Vatican City is a sovereign City/State.) So yeah, the Royal Standard along with the British flag should be used. 1305cj (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (summoned by bot): Option 5, as the recognition is of the person, not a state. It is rather unclear what "country" refers to in this context anyway. Is it nationality, or country of birth, or country of residence, etc.? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option 5 Unless Time includes nationality into consideration in some way I am unaware of, it's completely irrelevant to the people being honoured. The wider country isn't being honoured. What does it represent anyway? For David Ho and Andrew Gove, the award was for work completed in the United States long after they both personally settled there, yet it gives the impression that somehow Taiwan and Hungary are relevant, and even places them first. All the popes were famous for things they did while Pope, not for things relating to the other countries (Yet for the popes the Vatican is listed before the other country for some reason?). The multi-awards and the global awards reinforce this. (If not 5, 4 I guess: it fits into the precedent the other multiple country entries have set, where flags are clearly not there to indicate where the eligible work was done.) CMD (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe they had descriptions on the title that indicated where the honoree is from for example India's Gandhi or something along those lines. The tradition is long gone either way, Merkel's cover calls her the Chancellor of the Free World, and some covers have planets, groups of people, concepts etc. I think the notes column is far more important, the reader should know why that particular person was honored that year and the same column could indicate nationality. --Killuminator (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Option 5 per Moxy and CMD. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
• Follow the guideline: Option 5 The Flag MOS says Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Drop the full column. There's no particular reason the table should have a column for height, gender, or nationality. (Other than the fact that other people/sources often do engage in nationalistic score keeping, but NPOV we should be above following suit.) Furthermore MOS:FLAGBIO illustrates why it's a disaster to try to make basic indications of nationality. Elizabeth II's entry here shows what a mess it is. Just don't. Alsee (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option 5 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)
• Option 5 – 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) 15:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• NOTE TO CLOSER: Two editors, Cullen³²⁸ and Quinto Simmaco, attempted to !vote on this topic, but there was a confusing situation on this page. Check this section to see what happened. You may wish to take into account their intent to participate. Alsee (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for notifying me, Alsee. I support removing all of these flag icons from this article (and most other articles) because, in my opinion, they add almost nothing of encyclopedic value but instead serve as endless points of contention for editors who get all wrapped up in nationalistic disputes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Added 7th option: Same as #2, but without the flag (for this or any other entry), which is more consonant with MOS:FLAGS. Failing that, options 3, 1, and 5 also get at the problem.
• Option 5 Redundant, not evenly applied, and a cause of needless debate. trackratte (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option 7 or Option 5 - Option 7 seems to be sensible (and in line with MOS:FLAG). Option 5 would be even better as it would remove the undue emphasis on nationality. Kaldari (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

This RfC doesn't ask the right question. Rather than what should be done specifically for Elizabeth II, as though she's the only entry in this list, the matter to sort out should have been: what's the purpose of the flags and what determines which are shown? That way, everyone in the list could be treated the same and it could be explained to readers why that flag or those flags are next to the person's (or persons') name. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your observations. Of course, others can weigh in on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the purpose of the flags is what was pointed out by the user Reywas92. --Killuminator (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And we've been over that. No matter WHAT we come up with, Miesianiacal's standpoint will not be supported.

• Citizenship: Elizabeth II has none, she gets no flags.
• Countries they are most associated with: UK.
• Country of birth: UK.
• Country of residence: UK.
• Country where the work recognized was done: UK.

The only way we can get Miesianiacal's standpoint is if we decide that the flag column should contain countries that you are head of state or monarch in, unless they have below a hundred thousand population, in which case Elizabeth II gets several flags and most people in the list gets no flags. Which seems rather pointless.

This discussion is dead, and IMO the consensus is clear. Now all that needs to be done is to wait for the article protection to be lifted. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Your resort to passive aggressive personal attacks is telling.

Instead of focusing on trying to make me look like some kind of idiot loser, you should keep your attention on what I write. If you did, you'd know I am also fine with no flags. That was in response to the question of what to do with Elizabeth II`s line; though, I would extend that acceptance to application of the no-flag idea to the whole list, for consistency, which remains important. Hence, my statement above, which you actually have not clearly addressed. Are you for only one flag for everyone (i.e. only country of birth)? Are you for multiple flags and, if so, which ones (i.e. country of birth and country where work recognised was done; or more)? Neither of those are currently applied consistently through the list.

Alternately, whatever you implement for Elizabeth II will be applied to all others in the list. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing passive aggressive and no personal attacks in anything I wrote, and I would remind you that on wikipedia we ramains civil and discuss the topics and not each other. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:AGF is a component of the maintenance of civility. Please keep it in mind. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Checking over this article's title & content (which is Time Person of the Year), I think it is fair for one to assume that Time Magazine be used as a source & that it's a reliable source. I've checked through the 1952 Time Person of the Year source (provided by Killuminator) & it appears to only emphasize Elizabeth II's role as British monarch. What do the rest of you think? Should we question Time Magazine as a reliable source? IMHO, we shouldn't. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've asked this question, because Miesianiacal stated (in the pre-Rfc discussion, at 3:07 - Feb 17, 2016) that "Any mass media ignorance or inaccuracy isn't a guide for an encylopedia". Mies, are you suggesting that Time Magazine is unreliabe? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

5 to 1 is consensus in my book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.64.170 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the current 'lone' dissenter, would argue that :) GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

They always do, but consensus doesn't require that everyone likes it. There is a clear consensus, and time to change the article IMO. The edit that was done changed more than the flags, though, and was reasonably reverted. I also wonder if we should add the Isle of Man and Channel Islands to the list of places she became a queen of, or if we implicitly include that in UK, even though UK is only "responsible for" these islands, but doesn't actually INLCUDE them? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the Notes column. IMHO, we should just have Queen of the United Kingdom (per the 1952 Time Magazine source), with a footnote for the six other realms. Of course, whatever the rest of you decide, is cool with me :) GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I find the footnote rather redundant if you notice the very same information is used for the notes section. I would oppose adding The Isle of Man and the other one since they aren't countries. --Killuminator (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, so the change should just be changing Commonwealth realms + footnote to the UK flag, then. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: The Notes version that the IP put in (earlier), but with a footnote for the other six realms, attached to Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I was talking about this Notes section - In 1952, Elizabeth acceded to the thrones of United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Ceylon, New Zealand, Pakistan and South Africa following the death of her father, King George VI, the footnote would just replicate these same countries already mentioned here. --Killuminator (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

So, you recommend just Queen of the United Kingdom in the Notes column? GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No, the notes column is good as it is. It provides more info. I consider the footnote to be unnecessary since the notes column give off pretty much the same information. --Killuminator (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The footnote was being offered 'only' if we changed the Notes to just Queen of the United Kingdom. Not with the current Notes version :) GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, my proposal would be to keep the notes version as it is and ditch the footnote. The notes section looks like a more appropriate place to note these countries. --Killuminator (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you & the others decide about the Notes column's content? is cool with me :) My primary concern was/is the Country column :) GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

PS - I didn't include the Notes column, when I opened this Rfc. Perhaps, it's something that would only need a local consensus after the Rfc's closed. Anyways, whatever ya'll prefer :) GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, so Done, then. If the notes field need changing, whoever feels this is necessary can probably be WP:BOLD and do that. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wowsers, it's appearing as though my fourth preference (option 5) is in the lead. Meanwhile, my first preference (option 6) is running second :) GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Update - I'll be requesting closure of this Rfc by an administrator, as early as March 20, 2016. If anyone wants to argue that the Rfc was already closed/with a result already reached before the sudden 'new' influx of editors after a period of quietness? Now is their chance. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Update - I've requested closure, at the Rfc closure page. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No close seem to be happening. I counted, and Option 5 seems to have 8 !votes, and Option 6 has 4, taking into account that some people only had a weak preference for one vs the other. Option 7 has two !votes (and if it had been there originally, I would have strongly opposed it), and if we count "opposes" as negative !votes, option 2 gets only one. Other options have only one or two.

Option 5, removing the column, is the most popular option, but in total only gets 8 out of 16 !votes. I'm neither uninvolved, nor an admin, but it doesn't seem like a consensus, really. I'm inclined to let the UK Only option "win" (it's the current status as well), and create a new RfC on whether we remove the flag column or not. Opinions? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm content with your reading of the situation & would go along with what you propose. GoodDay (talk) 11:22, 6 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.

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[edit]

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.