Talk:Time magazine refutes US President Donald Trump's Twitter claim he was nominated Time 'Person of the Year'

Move protected =>Time magazine refutes US president Donald Trump's Twitter claim he was nominated Time 'Person of the Year'
moveprotected Simple reason: Who the fuck is Donald Trump? If the headline can not answer it, at least it should attempt to reduce guessing work. •–• 15:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Specifying "Time" seems much more central to making the headline sensible than specifying "US President". If we're changing it anyway, though &mdash; and I do think the "Time" thing is important enough to change it for, I should have caught that before publication &mdash; I've got no problem doing the other at the same time.  Getting set up to do that now.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Although, one might claim it's implicit in the mention of Time at the start of the headline, I suppose. --Pi zero (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not list what all is wrong with the title. What is Time magazine? Is it about sports? Photography? Physics? What is "Person of the Year"? Since we can not answer all these things, at least mention who is Donald Trump. If "US president" was not mentioned, saying Time POTY makes no difference. Time is not known by all across the globe. •–• 16:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * On reflection (and taking some IRC discussion into account), it's not best to think of this in terms of explaining things in the headline. Rather, think of how to better serve the function of the headline.  There's a  about headlines in the Style guide, "Tell the most important and unique thing."  It's important to realize that Time magazine was correcting a statement that was made about their own choice for Person of the Year.  Also, knowing who Trump is contributes to understanding the nature of the importance; that's an aspect I feel I should have paid more notice to earlier in the discussions of this change &mdash; and, indeed, imho that consideration is much clearer if one thinks of this in terms of "tell the most important and unqiue thing" rather than "look how many people might not know who Donald Trump is".  Best to emphasize what we're trying to do, and how to most effectively do that.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Look how many people might not know about Trump is just another way of looking at mentioning he is POTUS would add something unique, interesting point to the story while it tackles ambiguity. I have tried to tell (others) to tell something unique, but they say is "it looks good for me, if you are not okay with it, then why don't you change it?" -- that too when their titles had nothing "unique" or "special". Agastya Chandrakant   ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰  16:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

New York City
Why would you want to use the wikilink target that conveys less information? I could say more, but to start with I honestly don't understand your  motivation here, hence my &mdash;sincere&mdash; question. --Pi zero (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * These are subjective things. For example, when I wrote about Al Jazeera, I said Qatar-based news org in lede for this article: Al Jazeera says Snapchat's act a 'clear attack on the rights of journalists' as Snapchat blocks Qatar-based news network's channel in Saudi Arabia However, when I mentioned about it in Visa now compulsory for Qataris to enter Egypt, foreign ministry says, for the article about Qatar, I said Doha-based news org. It depends on how much geographical information was released. Ideally, I should say "Doha, Qatar, based". Like for Amazon, Inc. I said Seattle, Washington. For this article, ideally we should explain what Time magazine is about. Name suggests it could be a news magazine, a photography magazine or it could be related to sports. I wanted to say US-based but that would look odd in the lede. Saying "NY city, NY" would just increase number of commas, pauses and complexity.


 * However, I did not understand why you wanted to stick with that lede, which speaks about the focal event after the first sentence -- which is entirely a different story. No matter how sooner or how later Time responded, if their denial is the focal point, it should be said first and the previous action should be mentioned later. The first line fails to answer the 5Ws and Hs since tho "who" is Time magazine in this case. Doing it in the way I had suggested would help in answering those questions as early as possible, and also ensuring the transition from the first paragraph to the second showed signs of continuity. •–• 13:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)