Talk:Mother Earth Living

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Directory of current staff

It is not WP's mission to display the masthead of a journal or magazine. The comparison made by User:Eekerz in an edit summary with Time (magazine) is wrong: the Time article quite correctly lists all people who have been (managing) editors of that (highly notable) magazine. In contrast, the article on this magazine provides a near complete list of all people currently working for it, including illustrators, photographers, consultants, and whatnot. This list obviously violates the spirit and letter of WP:NOTADIRECTORY and is unencyclopedic. I have therefore removed it yet again. Please do not restore without providing an adequate justification (rising above WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said in the edit summary, listing the staff and editorial advisory board adds credibility and notability. While most of the staff and board don't have Wikipedia pages (4 do and another did before it was deleted), that isn't grounds for not being included in a small list of people relating to a publication either. The not-a-directory argument is flawed too since these people aren't "loosely associated", aren't geneological entries, don't have contact info to classify as white/yellow page listings, aren't a directory (which is linked by WP:NOTADIRECTORY as an unreferenced and vague article that basically describes a white/yellow page listing anyway), not a sales catalog, changelog or release notes, aren't cross-categorizations, and is hardly a "complete exposition of all possible details". So how, exactly, does listing the staff and editorial advisory board of a magazine violate Wikipedia's policies? While I could agree that listing the photographer in the infobox and staff may be redundant, it's common practice in films to list staff and actors in the infobox and cast/crew sections. I really don't understand why you're making such a big deal about this considering listing the staff doesn't add much to the article in terms of space (since Wikipedia isn't paper). —Eekerz ^(t) 14:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question of space. Listing of the staff an editorial board does not add any credibility/notability, as notability is not inherited. Some academic journals have Nobel winners on their boards, those are obviously highly notable, but still not listed either. If for a certain person there are independent reliable sources describing this person's involvement with a publication (other than just having authored something published in this magazine), then that persons involvement could be part of this article. Otherwise, this does indeed look like an internal phone directory (bar the phone numbers, obviously) and as such is against NOTADIRECTORY. I don't edit film articles, so I don't know what the justification is for including the most important actors/crew (but certainly not all the dozens if not hundreds of people involved) in those articles, but whether justified or not, that falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is not an argument that carries much (if any) weight. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mother Earth Living. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107145955/http://www.magazine.org/indy/four_questions/Bryan_Welch.aspx to http://www.magazine.org/indy/four_questions/Bryan_Welch.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]