Jump to content

Talk:Time (magazine): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
(42 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
{{American English}}
{{American English}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Magazines |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Magazines |class=B |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Media|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Media|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=B |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Mid}}
}}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-03-02|oldid1=2647599|date2=2005-03-03|oldid2=16334925}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-03-02|oldid1=2647599|date2=2005-03-03|oldid2=16334925}}
{{archives}}


==Position on Israel==
: I think the original question was a reasonable one. Does ''Time'' have a pro-Israel policy? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.107.238.150|91.107.238.150]] ([[User talk:91.107.238.150|talk]]) 11:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/82.7.192.163|82.7.192.163]] ([[User talk:82.7.192.163|talk]]) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


::Have you read the articles in the magazine? Read, and judge for yourself. --[[User:Ericdn|Ericdn]] ([[User talk:Ericdn|talk]]) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


So... from 1941 to 1987, nothing happened at Time (magazine); THAT'S flabbergasting, isn't it? B-class article or Z-class article, that's the question! <span style="font-family: Times; size: small">[[User:Alainr345|<i style="color: #4590ff">AlainR345</i>]][[User talk:Alainr345|<sup style="color: #ffb000">Techno-Wiki-Geek</sup>]]</span> 03:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I do not like Time magazine - but I have certainly never seen any pro Israeli bias in its news coverage. If anything there is an anti Israeli bias. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.107.238.150|91.107.238.150]] ([[User talk:91.107.238.150|talk]]) 11:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:There have been recurring allegations of explicit anti-semitism and anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bias. Would be interesting to see how regularly they visit the Gulf... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.147.156.14|86.147.156.14]] ([[User talk:86.147.156.14|talk]]) 23:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== "[[:Time (Magazine)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
==Whither the newsweeklies==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
Per a prior discussion on this page, an interesting piece from ''The Washington Post'''s media critic Howard Kurtz on "Do Newsmags Still Matter?": [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html?hpid=news-col-blog] [[User:MarmadukePercy|MarmadukePercy]] ([[User talk:MarmadukePercy|talk]]) 02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=Time_(Magazine)&redirect=no Time (Magazine)]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 21#Time (Magazine)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 22:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


== Move to [[Time Magazine]]? ==
== Move citations into refs? ==


Could we move this article to [[Time Magazine]]. That is what it is usually called and just looks better than Time (magazine). --[[User:Apoc2400|Apoc2400]] ([[User talk:Apoc2400|talk]]) 20:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
There are multiple places where the article says, "According to Book X, blah...". Would someone like to move those into refs with proper citations (including authors, publisher, isbn numbers, etc)? -- [[User:Gnuish|Gnuish]] ([[User talk:Gnuish|talk]]) 14:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


== missing my package ==
:According to the article here in Wikipedia, the magazine is trademarked under the name ''TIME''. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to title the article "Time Magazine", as that is ''not'' the official title of the magazine, regardless of popular useage. --[[User:Ericdn|Ericdn]] ([[User talk:Ericdn|talk]]) 20:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


::Shouldn't it therefore be renamed ''TIME'' (magazine).--[[User:Ezeu|Ezeu]] ([[User talk:Ezeu|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Tumu delivered 4/18 /24, I didn't get the package TRACK # IzGG760YW71694317, PLEASE RESPONSE ME I CALLED USPS NO ANSWE [[Special:Contributions/40.135.124.221|40.135.124.221]] ([[User talk:40.135.124.221|talk]]) 07:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

:'''Keep'''. The title is correct without the word "Magazine". TIME refers to itself (in the magazine) as TIME, not "Time Magazine". I'm undecided on the capitalization issue. [[Rolling Stone]] refers to itself in its articles using capital letters, too. ([[Small caps]] actually. See the article on [[Small caps]]-- apparently, [[Newsweek]] does too.) [[User:Blackplate|Blackplate]] ([[User talk:Blackplate|talk]]) 02:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

:'''Support''' I support the move to "Time Magazine" as fitting better with [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. Articles as much as possible should be in common, not official, formal or trademarked, name. See for example the [[Big Dig]]. And it does look better. The small all-caps is a common practice of magazines. Has any article outside of the magazine used all small caps? --[[User:Iloilo Wanderer|Iloilo Wanderer]] ([[User talk:Iloilo Wanderer|talk]]) 13:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
::I just noticed that Time's [http://www.time.com/time/magazine own website] refers to the magazine as "Time Magazine" where as the main page for [http://www.time.com/time/ Time Inc] is headlined just as "Time". --[[User:Iloilo Wanderer|Iloilo Wanderer]] ([[User talk:Iloilo Wanderer|talk]]) 13:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

:'''Move it''' since whenever possible, we should avoid parenthensizing. [[User:Red Slash|<span style="color:#FF4131;">Red </span>]][[User talk:Red Slash|<b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b>]] 19:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

:Oppose. the official name is just plain Time. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]])</small> 02:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

:'''Oppose'''. The magazine's name is ''Time''. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

:'''Oppose'''. It seems like it definitely should be written in capitals though. The correct name is ''TIME'', not ''Time''. [[User:Tiggum|Tiggum]] ([[User talk:Tiggum|talk]]) 07:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
::'''Oppose and comment'''. See [[WP:TITLETM]]: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)". ''Time'' magazine can refer to itself as TIME all it wants, but we use normal capitalization rules until other sources predominantly use TIME. [[User:HolyT|Holy]] ([[User talk:HolyT|talk]]) 17:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''. The current title works fine. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 08:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

:'''Support''' I support the move to "Time magazine" or "Time Magazine", in accordance with the [[WP:TITLEDAB]] policy (natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation) and the [[WP:TITLETM]] policy ("Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)"). (Related: "TIME" is specifically mentioned in the [[MOS:TMRULES]] guideline). The official name is irrelevant -- the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] policy specifically says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 17:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

==Reporting on the Catholic Church==
I noticed that TIME has been reporting on the Church since at least the 1920s Progressive Era, often with its associated progressivist (and critical) ideological bent. For instance, if you look at the newspaper sources for the article on 1920s Cardinal [[George Mundelein]], they all come from TIME magazine. It would be interesting to find out why TIME has done so much reporting on the subject. [[User:ADM|ADM]] ([[User talk:ADM|talk]]) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is no secret that Time magazine hates both Roman Catholic doctrines (such as the Catholic opposition to abortion and Catholic teaching against homosexual acts) and hates the Roman Catholic church as an institution - and hates the present Pope personally (see the recent cover article "being Pope means never having to say your sorry", which was part of general media smear campaign implying that the present Pope covered up child sex abuse - which he did not).

However, the First Amendment means that a newspaper or magazine can have any opinions they want. No one is forced to buy Time magazine - and those who do buy it know that they are getting a "liberal" left view of the world, and there is nothing wrong with a magazine providing that.[[Special:Contributions/91.107.238.150|91.107.238.150]] ([[User talk:91.107.238.150|talk]]) 11:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:No, Time Magazine continues to brand themselves as mainstream when they are clearly not. There are political publications like the Nation and Rolling Stone which calls themselves liberal and the same with conservatives with publications like the National Review and The Weekly Standard. Time Magazine is pushing a biased publication while calling themselves mainstream. They should call themselves what they are. There are laws against misleading the public.[[Special:Contributions/2602:306:CC42:8340:3957:5DC7:970E:A4F6|2602:306:CC42:8340:3957:5DC7:970E:A4F6]] ([[User talk:2602:306:CC42:8340:3957:5DC7:970E:A4F6|talk]]) 05:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

== [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O69kdTfOmAs '''Time Lapse''' Video -→ 85 years (1923 - 2008<sup>AD</sup>) of TIME Magazine's Front Covers!] ==

Should that be included inside this article? [[Special:Contributions/118.107.241.2|118.107.241.2]] ([[User talk:118.107.241.2|talk]]) 06:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

== Time Top 100 Hack ==

http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/27/moot-wins-time-inc-loses/

http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-hack/

Wouldn't this be note worthy on the Wiki Page of the time? It's a fact that the letters spell out what they spell out so at least a note would be good. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SteveClement|SteveClement]] ([[User talk:SteveClement|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SteveClement|contribs]]) 09:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== TIME Magazine editions in public domain: external www.time.com links ==

According to what has been detalied [[Talk:Time_(magazine)/Archive_1#Public_domain_issues|in an archived section of this talk page]], I am putting bellow the links from the ''time.com'' archive search engine results that match exaclty the covers of the editions of the magazine that went on [[public domain]]:

* [http://search.time.com/results.html?search_type=simple&N=46&Nf=p_date_range|BTWN+19230301+19340122&Ns=p_date_range|1 1923-1934]
* [http://search.time.com/results.html?search_type=simple&N=46&Nf=p_date_range|BTWN+19350107+19360629&Ns=p_date_range|1 1935-1936]
* [http://search.time.com/results.html?search_type=simple&N=46&Nf=p_date_range|BTWN+19390703+19400513&Ns=p_date_range|1 1939-1940]
* [http://search.time.com/results.html?search_type=simple&N=46&Nf=p_date_range|BTWN+19450107+19450129&Ns=p_date_range|1 1945]

That’s it.--[[User:MaGioZal|MaGioZal]] ([[User talk:MaGioZal|talk]]) 06:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

==Circulation.==

Time Magazine's circulation for 2009 is not given in the article - an update is clearly needed.[[Special:Contributions/91.107.104.32|91.107.104.32]] ([[User talk:91.107.104.32|talk]]) 20:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
:[[WP:BEBOLD|Do it then]]. <b>[[User:RaseaC|<span style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">raseaC]]</span><sup>[[User talk:RaseaC|talk to me]]</sup></b> 20:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

---

I note that an update has been given, but it states that Time magazine circulation is 3.4 million for 2009 - the same number as for 2008, and 2007. It does not seem likely that the magazine would have the same circulation three years in a row - and giving the same number does not fit with the massive decline in newsstand sales (are we supposed to be believe that lots of extra people have taken out a subscription to Time?).

It is time for an investigation into possible circulation fraud.[[Special:Contributions/91.107.238.150|91.107.238.150]] ([[User talk:91.107.238.150|talk]]) 11:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:What happened in 2010 for circulation to jump massively by seven million copies? It's not clear in the article. [[User:BillyH|Billy]][[User talk:BillyH|H]] 18:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"As of 2012, it has a circulation of 3.3 million doctor offices and various reception rooms... As of 2014, its circulation was 3,286,467.[1]"

The reception circulation matches total circulation. This suggests "Time" has no non-reception subscribers. Even in a straitened publishing environment, that seems unlikely.

== bias? ==

Anything about Time's political bias? [[User:Junuxx|Junuxx]] ([[User talk:Junuxx|talk]]) 23:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I must say. Why is there no discussion of TIME Magazine's bias? That seems to be a form of bias in and of itself, not shining an opposing viewpoint on their journalism. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.205.173.24|71.205.173.24]] ([[User talk:71.205.173.24|talk]]) 20:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The issue of biased should be addressed. Time has come out with many cover stories that some people feel are controversial or hold a leftwing bias such as: Why are Obama's Opponents so Stupid, Does it Matter Anymore? (in reference to the US consitution), Is your Baby Racist?, and Were all Socialists Now. These controversial articals should at least be mentioned. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.198.54.206|128.198.54.206]] ([[User talk:128.198.54.206|talk]]) 23:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Nonsense. Since Time is a magazine, it should be obvious to anyone with a brain that its articles include editorializing. Since its articles are written by different writers (and signed) and submitted to different editors and the magazine has a very long history, the editorializing does not present a single monolithic point of view. Even within a single news article, in fact, Time tends to shift between different points of view (and news articles typically have more than one author). [[User:TheScotch|TheScotch]] ([[User talk:TheScotch|talk]]) 00:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

::No nonsense on your end TheScotch. I have been a subscriber for ten years and ever year Time get's more and more liberal towards becoming far left. They demonize right viewpoints and constantly any group disagreeing with liberal agenda as "Far right" They constantly call immigrants 'refugees' when they are technically not, they never focus on the trash and violence that has come with their arrival and even labeled the Hungarian PM as a 'villain.' They are becoming an embarrassment to professional journalism and are going to lose a lot of independent minded subscribers (just like now defunct far left wing Newsweek).
:::I agree, there is no doubt that Time Magazine has become very left wing. Without outright accusing them of bias, we could just make mention of the allegations and articles that are thought to show a bias from the magazine.[[Special:Contributions/2602:306:CC42:8340:3957:5DC7:970E:A4F6|2602:306:CC42:8340:3957:5DC7:970E:A4F6]] ([[User talk:2602:306:CC42:8340:3957:5DC7:970E:A4F6|talk]]) 05:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Time is owned by the same company who own CNN, so extreme left wing bias is going to be present, as evidenced by the demonizing article on Donald Trump in Dec 2016 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.186.217.126|24.186.217.126]] ([[User talk:24.186.217.126#top|talk]]) 13:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The discussion above seems to illustrate that some people in the US have moved very far right, so far right that they cannot see balanced writing. Many outside the US see this country as moving so far right, that those called "on the left" are really in the middle, politically. Refugees are people fleeing a country where they are not safe to live, and their next step is to immigrate somewhere. There is nothing leftist or liberal about the word refugee. Time is still writing in the middle, and covering all the issues and all the viewpoints. Balance means presenting both sides, not simply the side to which you adhere. --[[User:Prairieplant|Prairieplant]] ([[User talk:Prairieplant|talk]]) 09:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
:That's a kind of criticism that works both ways and which you should at least consider as also affecting you. People naturally tend to see their own opinions as the "correct" ones, and differing opinions as extremist deviations from that standard. You, for instance, think that America, as a whole, is shifting to the "far right". I don't share that view (even though I admit the country is becoming more partisan); I think that the truth is that European majority views (and I'm in Europe myself) has shifted to the left to such an extent that what used to be seen as perfectly acceptable centrist views are now perceived as "far right". [[User:SchnitteUK|SchnitteUK]] ([[User talk:SchnitteUK|talk]]) 13:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

When it began, Time tilted toward the Republican side but for the past few decades has leaned very clearly and indisputably toward the pro-Democrat side. Saying this is simply honest. Not saying it in the main article is just avoiding the obvious. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.49.27.38|216.49.27.38]] ([[User talk:216.49.27.38#top|talk]]) 14:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Sales and circulation==

I wanted to put in both the single copy sales and the circulation numbers for the second half of 2010 - but I have been unable to find the numbers.

I suggest someone else tries - and does the job I have tried, and failed, to do.[[Special:Contributions/91.107.69.48|91.107.69.48]] ([[User talk:91.107.69.48|talk]]) 23:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

== Europe? ==

This article states: "Time Europe covers the Middle East, Africa and, since 2003, Latin America." Presumably, it ALSO covers the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America in addition to Europe. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/192.158.61.139|192.158.61.139]] ([[User talk:192.158.61.139|talk]]) 17:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Magazine Content ==

Should there not be some description in the article of the sort of content and coverage provided by this magazine? I expected to find that under the Style heading, but that basically says that the cover has got a red border, except when it doesn't.

Mind you, from what I remember seeing, the inside pages consist by and large of full-age advertisements with the odd sound-bite filled, explain-something-to-a-three-year-old style article getting in the way. Maybe that's why nobody has bothered to write a Contents section? Just saying. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.151.146.255|79.151.146.255]] ([[User talk:79.151.146.255|talk]]) 13:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Well, it's gotten skimpier recently, which points to a larger problem: The magazine has a long history such that trying to describe it in detail is aiming at a moving target. [[User:TheScotch|TheScotch]] ([[User talk:TheScotch|talk]]) 00:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

== Links ==

p[http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201402171944-0023481 >> TIME magazine's 'Saving Mexico' issue prompts backlash ]([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 17:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)).

== Please avoid linking to amazon.com and other retail websites ==

There were two external links to amazon in this article that I have replaced with links to pbs and google books. The google books link does not have an E-Book for sale through Google (although the page does incude referral links to a number of book-sellers, including Amazon). Both links include lengthy excerpts. There is almost never a reason to link to a sales page, it should be avoided and at the very least discussed here to avoid COI issues (these were not discussed). [[User:Jaydubya93|Jay Dubya]] ([[User talk:Jaydubya93|talk]]) 18:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

=="styled ... as"==
In addition to my edit summary, "often written" could be considered [[WP:WEASEL]]ly. :) &mdash;[[User:ATinySliver|<span style="font-family:times; font-size:15px; text-shadow:2px 2px 2px">ATinySliver</span>]]<b>&#47;</b>[[User talk:ATinySliver|<span style="font-family:times; color:#070; text-shadow:2px 2px 2px"><sup>ATalkPage</sup></span>]] 02:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


=="Notable contributors"==
In order to make this section more meaningful, should we include a qualifying definition of what constitutes a "notable contributor", keeping in mind Wikipedia's article, [[Notability]]? (For some historic and literary "fun", see: http://www.theatlantic.com/ideastour/contributors/.) Kibbitzer 04:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kibbitzer|Kibbitzer]] ([[User talk:Kibbitzer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kibbitzer|contribs]]) </span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Fully protected edit request on 30 March 2017 ==

{{edit fully-protected|TIME|answered=yes}}
A protected redirect, '''TIME'''{{-r|TIME|,}} needs redirect category ([[WP:RCAT|rcat]]) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

* from this:

<pre>
#REDIRECT [[Time (magazine)]]
</pre>

* to this:

<pre>
#REDIRECT [[Time (magazine)]]

{{Redirect category shell|{{R from move}}{{R from stylization}}{{R printworthy}}}}
</pre>

* {{color|darkred|'''<small>WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.</small>'''}}
The {{tl|Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{tl|pp-protected}} and/or {{tl|pp-move}} suffice, the ''Redirect category shell'' template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! &nbsp;'''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''<small>&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>12:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)</small>
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:EP --> &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
:: Thank you, [[User:MSGJ|Martin]], and please forgive me – I forgot to add {{tl|R hatnote}}, so it should appear as:
<pre>
#REDIRECT [[Time (magazine)]]

{{Redirect category shell|{{R from move}}{{R from stylization}}{{R hatnote}}{{R printworthy}}}}
</pre>
::I'm very sorry and thanks again! &nbsp;'''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''<small>&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>20:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)</small>
:::No problem &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
::::[[User:MSGJ|{{black|Martin}}]], you are the best! &nbsp;'''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''<small>&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>16:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)</small>

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on [[Time (magazine)]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/816567496|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305182439/http://www.timemediakit.com/us/media/bios/stengel.html to http://www.timemediakit.com/us/media/bios/stengel.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430001058/http://platform.idiomag.com/2009/04/times-foray-into-personalized-publishing-time-mine/ to http://platform.idiomag.com/2009/04/times-foray-into-personalized-publishing-time-mine/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402200758/http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHonline/2011/baughman.pdf to http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHonline/2011/baughman.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 05:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

== Time vs. TIME ==

Should this page not be for TIME, as opposed to Time, as stated on the magazine's cover and website? While just now changing a page to match this one's lowercase; I realized that I had never seen Time as the name: it ''seemed'' to appear everywhere else as TIME, until Wikipedia made it Time, influencing other publishers to do likewise. [[User:AHampton|AHampton]] ([[User talk:AHampton|talk]]) 17:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
:Does this help? [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)]]. [[User:BeenAroundAWhile|BeenAroundAWhile]] ([[User talk:BeenAroundAWhile|talk]]) 16:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
::Thanks, {{user|BeenAroundAWhile}}—I'd missed your note. [[User:AHampton|AHampton]] ([[User talk:AHampton|talk]]) 19:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)—

== List of countries in infobox ==

I removed them because nowhere was it specified exactly what the list means. [[User:BeenAroundAWhile|BeenAroundAWhile]] ([[User talk:BeenAroundAWhile|talk]]) 16:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

== magazine's publication frequency ==

As of January 2021, Time is published on a biweekly basis, not weekly. This is stated in fine print at the bottom of page 2 of the Jan. 18/Jan. 25 issue. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.76.24.149|75.76.24.149]] ([[User talk:75.76.24.149#top|talk]]) 02:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I changed the category to bi-weekly, so if this isn't true please revert it. --- <span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';">Mullafacation</span> &#123;[[User_talk:Mullafacation|talk page]]&#124;[[User:Mullafacation|user page]]&#125; 15:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

== Orphaned references in [[:Time (magazine)]] ==

I check pages listed in [[:Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting]] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for [[User:AnomieBOT/docs/OrphanReferenceFixer|orphaned references]] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of [[:Time (magazine)]]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

<b>Reference named "Wilson":</b><ul>
<li>From [[False title]]: {{citation | last = Wilson | first = Kenneth G. | year = 1993 | title = The Columbia Guide to Standard American English | publisher = Columbia University Press | pages = 188–189 | isbn = 978-0-231-06989-2 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=L2ChiO2yEZ0C&pg=PA188 | access-date = 2009-05-23}}.</li>
<li>From [[Robert Wright (journalist)]]: {{cite web|title=Articles by: Robert Wright|url=http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/search_result.cfm?fSearch=Robert%20Wright&fSearchType=a&bSearch=Search|work=wilsonquarterly.com|publisher=The Wilson Quarterly|access-date=26 August 2011}}{{dead link|date=December 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</li>
</ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. [[User:AnomieBOT|AnomieBOT]][[User talk:AnomieBOT|<span style="color:#880">⚡</span>]] 10:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

:Dear bot,
:Thanks for catching this. I fixed it. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 14:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

== Recent changes in editorial slant ==


Most of the info is out of date or historical in context. We need something to reflect the newer aspects of the magazine. [[User:BeenAroundAWhile|BeenAroundAWhile]] ([[User talk:BeenAroundAWhile|talk]]) 00:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


==Proposed elimination of unneeded parenthesis in article title ==
Wikipedia is not the first to ponder how to refer to the magazine. Both [https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/CapitalizationTitles/faq0059.html the Chicago Manual of Style] and [https://writingexplained.org/ap-style/ap-style-magazine-names AP style guidelines] among others have agreed upon "Time magazine". I suggest we do likewise. Any counter-arguments or discussion? Otherwise I will propose this move. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] ([[User talk:Infrogmation|talk]])
:Hi {{ping|Infrogmation}}. It looks like we're continuing our conversation from Commons. I don't know much about Commons, but I'm pretty well versed in Wikipedia style. Here, the article [[Time]] is the [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC|primary topic]] for the word ''time'' (the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future). We have [[Time (disambiguation)]] which lists a lot of things called "Time"; especially note the long list of films, albums and songs, all of which have some term to disambiguate the word ''time'' following in parentheses.

:Wikipedia doesn't uses the title "Time (magazine)" because it thinks that is the correct title any more than the article titles we have chosen for [[The Ring (magazine)|''The Ring'' (magazine)]], [[Life (magazine)|''Life'' (magazine)]], [[Ms. (magazine)|''Ms.'' (magazine)]] or [[New York (magazine)|''New York'' (magazine)]]. The text in parentheses is for disambiguation. Similar to ''The Ring'', ''Life'', ''Ms.'' and ''New York'', the title of the magazine we are dealing with is ''Time''. It has had various subtitles or slogans over the years, but those are not the title. For example, at [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation]], it shows articles "titled [[Mercury (element)]], [[Mercury (planet)]] and [[Mercury (mythology)]]." The text "(magazine)" is similar to the text "(element)", "(planet)" and "(mythology)".

:Your example from ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style|Chicago]]'' shows "''Time'' magazine" in running text, but I'm pretty sure in a reference or if it was clear from context that it was a magazine, it would just say ''Time''. The second from Writing Explained, says that the ''[[AP Stylebook]]'' would recommend:
:{{blockquote|
:*''Men’s Health''
:*''Better Homes and Gardens''
:*''Time magazine''
:*''W magazine''}}

:I'd like to see the ''AP Stylebook'' on that directly because I think Writing Explained is wrong about ''Time'' and ''[[W (magazine)|W]]''. The word "magazine" should not be in italics.

:I think the present article title is right for Wikipedia, though something different may work better at Commons.&nbsp;[[User:SchreiberBike|SchreiberBike&nbsp;]]&#124;[[User talk:SchreiberBike#top|&nbsp;⌨&nbsp;]] 03:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as I noted as Common the reason why sources use the lower case magazine is to say that "magazine" isn't part of the name which is why its in brackets here similar to Mercury though the element is a common noun so could be lower cased if that was common but it isn't. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 08:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' --[[User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] ([[User talk:Broichmore|talk]]) 14:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

:'''Support''' I support the move to "Time magazine" or "Time Magazine", in accordance with the [[WP:TITLEDAB]] policy (natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation) and the [[WP:TITLETM]] policy ("Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)"). The official name is irrelevant -- the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] policy specifically says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". Many writers use "Time magazine" (with lowercase "m") to unambiguously refer to this magazine (rather than, say, it's parent company). If that's the "most common" unambiguous name, then that's what Wikipedia policies say we should use as the title. (Related: "[[Apple keyboards]]" and "[[Google search engine]]" suggested by the article [https://venturegainedlegal.com/blog/2017/9/15/why-you-shouldneveruse-your-brand-names-as-a-nouns-or-verbs "Why you should never use your brand name as a noun or verb"]). (I'm fine with shortening it to merely "Time" in the running text). --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 18:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:48, 29 April 2024


So... from 1941 to 1987, nothing happened at Time (magazine); THAT'S flabbergasting, isn't it? B-class article or Z-class article, that's the question! AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 03:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Time (Magazine)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Time (Magazine) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 21 § Time (Magazine) until a consensus is reached. Nickps (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move citations into refs?[edit]

There are multiple places where the article says, "According to Book X, blah...". Would someone like to move those into refs with proper citations (including authors, publisher, isbn numbers, etc)? -- Gnuish (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

missing my package[edit]

Tumu delivered 4/18 /24, I didn't get the package TRACK # IzGG760YW71694317, PLEASE RESPONSE ME I CALLED USPS NO ANSWE 40.135.124.221 (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Time_(magazine)&oldid=1221327849"