Talk:PopMatters

Advertisement

This reads like advertising copy. Secretlondon 21:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

thats cause it is, taken almost verbatum from the "about" section of their website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirk Pitt (talk • contribs)

Then that's a problem. It needs to be edited to change that. I'll try to get around to it when I have time, but you can fix it yourself, you know. --Grace 21:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the page to take out some of the overt "advertising language" and make it more informational. Therefore I've taken out the "advert" tag. If that's not kosher, let me know. Patrick Schabe

Italics

As a magazine, shouldn't the subject of this article be referred to as PopMatters instead of PopMatters? Or does PopMatters fit in a separate category (actually web only, like AMG?) ~Gertlex 02:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is a magazine it should be referred to as PopMatters as per Manual of Style. If it is not (as it seems) the lead section of the article shouldn't refer to it as magazine. Jogers (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

just laziness to not go to the site and find out, but does anyone know whether the title is saying that the magazine deals with matters, the noun, that relate to pop, or that pop music or pop culture does matter, the verb?--72.93.93.111 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

List of staff

So I removed the list of staff, and it was reverted. Since the edit summary in the revert didn't cite any policy, and since I've never seen a list like that before, I removed it again. It was reverted again, with an edit summary telling me to "mind [my] own business". Accepting that neither Neptune's Trident or I are communicating especially effectively though the edit summaries, I would still like a third opinion on this matter. Truthfully, I never bothered to read most of the Manual of Style because everything I did read was either really obvious or pointlessly pedantic, so I personally can't quote where it says that providing a list of staff, all of which are non-notable, in a manner that kind-of-sort-of looks overly promotional, is discouraged. It's just that I've never seen anything like that before, and it seems to me to be running afoul of WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, just not particularly blatantly. Can anyone else advise? Sven Manguard Wha? 08:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I informed the other party in this dispute about this thread, and he or she removed it without comment. As it appears that the discussion has stalled, I have referred this to WP:3O. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Being a magazine or published source, it would be most appropriate to include a list of main content editors for the magazine. However, a full list of staff, including sundries, suchas list of associate editors is a bit much. Of course, if the lead editors are completely unremarkable a list is not needed at all. KonveyorBelt 22:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC) |} Konveyor Belt None of the editors have articles, and a quick search doesn't lead me to believe any of them, at this time, would qualify. If you were given the scissors, where would you cut? Cut the whole thing or leave the "Editors" section and cut the rest? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Then cut out all but the lead editors or head editors. KonveyorBelt 00:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Note that all PopMatters contributions are "voluntary" and unpaid? Should something go in here about how PopMatters doesn't pay its writers? It lets them retain the copyright of their contributions, but they're (to their credit) up front about how all their revenue from ads goes to the upkeep of the site. 168.161.13.129 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)