Talk:Time 100

message: It seems to me like this section is of questionable relevance to the overall topic of this article given that it is exclusively about one person who has appeared on the list. It seems like it would be more appropriate on Oprah’s page or elsewhere, but I didn’t want to erase it without gauging consensus. 68.62.162.51 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's a joke. It makes Wikipedia a joke. 86.139.218.163 (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good news! It was removed in January of 2021. A joke? SchreiberBike | ⌨  11:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The “use in academic research” section 

message: External links to the yearly lists shouldn't really be embedded into the body of the article as a quasi sort of :WP:HATNOTE per :WP:ELHAT, :WP:CS#Avoid embedded links, :WP:ELLIST and :WP:EL#Cite_note-7. I've gone ahead and removed most of those that were, but only hid the ones which were added to sections lacking prose content. It's possible some of these links might have value as an :WP:INCITE, but they should be formatted as such if they do. I also added some  templates to those sections lacking prose. It wasn't clear what content would work best in each section, but once content has been added the hidden links might be able to be restored as citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embedded external links 

message: Musk made the list 5 times: 2010, 2013, 2018, 2021, 2023 93.162.16.32 (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And so is Putin, who made the list in 2008, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2022 (at least). I think the list in this article may be fairly incomplete. Djkauffman (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musk missing 

message: Since "Time 100" is the name of an official list, why is only "Time" being italicized?  This doesn't seem appropriate.  The entire title should be treated consistently, as it is its own entity.  If someone wrote an article titled, "The Bible and its Influence on Europe", would "Bible" be emphasized differently from the rest of the title? Writing "Time 100" looks especially odd (and confusing for those not familiar with it) when cited in other articles. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia style is to italicize the names of periodicals (see MOS:NAMESANDTITLES). An official list would not be italicized. The Bible is a confusing example because ancient religious works are not italicized (see MOS:ITALICTITLE). Typically an article with an italicized part would be formatted like "The origin and evolution of Homo sapiens". Take a look at our manual of style at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It's terribly complicated, but it will give you an idea where to start. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's say the article was titled "Reading Gone with the Wind in the South".  Would "GWTW" be treated differently from the rest of the title?  (Traditionally, book titles should be underlined, but I noticed Wikipedia doesn't do that for some reason.) Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, as an article title, it would be "Reading Gone with the Wind in the South". Even book titles are sometimes handled that way. There could even be a book title like The Story of the Titanic, where the last word would not be italicized because it is a ship name and the two reasons for italicization cancel out. I see the movie Raise the Titanic and the book Raise the Titanic! are not handled that way though. I haven't seen underlining used much since we moved away from typewriters and were able to italicize easily. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics treatment