Talk:The Nautilus (journal)

Editors

Why this sentence was removed from the article? It have been claiming to be against WP:NOTADIRECTORY (but there is no loosely associated topics in the sentence) and it have been claiming to be against Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide (there is nothing mentioned about such thing).

• There have been editorial comittee established in 1972 included: Arthur H. Clarke, Jr., William J. Clench, William Keith Emerson, Morris K. Jacobson, Aurèle La Rocque, James Hamilton McLean, Arthur S. Merrill, Donald R. Moore, Joseph Rosewater, G. Alan Solem, David H. Stansbery, Ruth D. Turner and Gilbert L. Voss.

Can those editors be in the "Editors" section especially when there is no difference with already mentioned ones? By the way, this sentence would be highly informative for the article/readers also without such names. --Snek01 (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• The journal article writing guide explicitly states that only editors in chief (or whatever their equivalent title for a given journal may be) should be listed, but not an "editorial committee" (i.e., an editorial board). --Crusio (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That does not state "The journal article writing guide" neither explicitly nor anyhow, but it is mentioned by somebody who can not even sign himself/herself on a talkpage Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide as a suggestion. --Snek01 (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, then notable people associated with the journal are included to the article. --Snek01 (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Have a look at the archives of the talk pages ot the Journals Wikiproject. There have been extensive discussions about including editorial boards or not and the consensus is that they should not be included. --Crusio (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide wikilink(s), please? I found only this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Archive_1#The_listing_of_scientists_related_to_the_journal. --Snek01 (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

List of current and past editors in chiefs are fine, but the current editorial board is usually not very relevant. I would not include it. Dates of birth and deaths should also be omitted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with User:Headbomb. Abductive (reasoning) 10:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Could you rather provide a wikilink to the "extensive discussions" according to words by Crusio who is claiming to gain a consensus on it already in the past? --Snek01 (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)