Jump to content

Talk:Time (magazine): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
OneClickArchived "magazine's publication frequency" to Talk:Time (magazine)/Archive 1
OneClickArchived "Orphaned references in Time (magazine)" to Talk:Time (magazine)/Archive 1
Line 12: Line 12:
{{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}}
{{archives}}

== 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 ==
== Recent changes in editorial slant ==

Revision as of 00:26, 23 August 2023

Template:Vital article

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Most of the info is out of date or historical in context.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. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed elimination of unneeded parenthesis in article title

Wikipedia is not the first to ponder how to refer to the magazine. Both the Chicago Manual of Style and 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. -- Infrogmation (talk)

Hi @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 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), Life (magazine), Ms. (magazine) or 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 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:
  • 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. 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. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 the phrase "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 phrase, then that's what Wikipedia policies say we should use as the title. (Whether or not it's part of the name). (Related: "Apple keyboards" and "Google search engine" suggested by the article "Why you should never use your brand name as a noun or verb", and "Lego bricks" suggested by the International Trademark Association). (I'm fine with shortening it to merely "Time" in the running text). --DavidCary (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note a related discussion above. — WFinch (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]