Talk:Old Farmer's Almanac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] RFC: Employee-Suggested Edits

Hello,

I am an employee of Yankee Publishing, Inc., of Dublin, New Hampshire.

Two months ago, I volunteered to update the Wikipedia listing for The Old Farmer’s Almanac – a publication owned by my employer.

I am posting this RFC with the intent of complying with Wikipedia guidelines and following suggestions attributed to Jimmy Wales in the following news article (dated January 26):

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/departments/online/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003536664

I have endeavored to prepare a "white paper" for The Old Farmer’s Almanac that is suitable for publication on Wikipedia.

This "white paper" can be found at http://www.almanac.com/wiki/wiki-article.html

This proposed article incorporates the existing article’s content, with few exceptions:

I left out (struck) the line stating that The Old Farmer’s Almanac is a subsidiary of Yankee Publishing, Inc., as it is not a subsidiary; I also struck the line stating that the Almanac is "billed the Purveyor of Useful and Entertaining Information...", as that is not a wholly accurate statement today (though it may have been at one point).

I amended the citations for statements regarding The Old Farmer’s Almanac status as the oldest continuously published periodical in North America ,and its claim to 80% accuracy, to sources published outside Yankee Publishing, Inc., and reworded the disputing claim for specificity.

In this proposed article, merged content appears in bold green text, content to be linked to existing Wiki articles appear in blue, and content to be linked to non-existing Wiki articles appear in red.

I understand that in the event there is no objection to this proposal, I am responsible for merging it into the existing article, uploading the supporting images, removing the stub entry, linking up relevant items and categories, and citing sources in the format established by the article’s original author.

I welcome your comments and suggestions. Thank you for your time and help!

NH-Nemesis 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let me thank you both for your interest in Wikipedia, and your openness and conscientiousness. This particular engagement with our project could serve as a model for others. Your proposed edit looks quite good; almost unquestionably an improvement. There are a couple of very minor points that I'd like to make, purely matters of Wikipedia content guidelines. The first one is that, unless you intend to release the 2007 under a free license, it shouldn't be in the infobox (the template in the top right corner), as we have old public domain covers to use instead. Also, the trivia section needs footnotes so that our readers can follow up on these items, just like the rest of the article content. Frankly, we're often not great at either of these things in many of our articles, so we haven't necessarily set a great example. Overall, this is excellent editing; I am especially impressed with your attention to our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy in the "How the Almanac predicts the weather" section. Jkelly 04:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the points above, and that this is well done. Be bold and make the changes. dml 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm impressed as well. One other small thing, single date years shouldn't be wikilinks. I'm guessing by the red/blue of the text in the link you provided means to wikilink and the expected status of the link. If you're just writing about a year, it shouldn't be wikilinked. But, if you give an exact date, then it's okay to link the year too. --MECU≈talk 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't is nice to have a company come right out and say: "Hello, I am from the company and here are a few points I'd like to make...."? Unlike Disney and The New York Times and other who were found to have edited their own wikipedia pages. \
I think we should use the most current cover for our picture. We do not need an old public domain edition since it is fair use to show just the cover of a publication as fair use (please correct me if I am wrong). --Jon in California 13 September 2007

[edit] Thank You!

Thank you, very much, for your kind words, suggestions, and input.

I am securing citations for the trivia section this week, removing date links, and I should have an updated document posted at the beginning of next week (at the latest).

I am not sure how to properly proceed at this point. The RfC page says that RfC "discussions will be removed after one month, or if they have no recent comments".

Should I wait until this discussion is closed before posting the proposed changes? I've looked for a guideline, but haven't found one - and I certainly don't want to pull a faux pas at this point. :)

I am much obliged to you for your time and help.

NH-Nemesis 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


From what I've seen around here so far, I would say that in general, you can usually go ahead and make a proposed change without a formal closure to the discussion, as long as there's been no significant disagreement. I must say, however, that I’m confused about what the aim is here. I read the article you referred to above, and it sounds like Wales is suggesting that a “white paper” be posted elsewhere (not on Wikipedia) and linked from the Wikipedia discussion page. But from your post, it sounds as if you are talking about replacing the existing Wikipedia entry with the “white paper” version. If that’s your aim, then more discussion might be needed here, and/or you should probably be prepared to find others re-editing your article after it’s posted. I do appreciate your efforts and I must say that the paper looks very professional. However, the paper’s style feels much more like that of the Almanac itself than like the style of an encyclopedia article, despite its wealth of citations. Hierophany 10:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (incidentally a longtime OFA fan)

I appreciate your insight and comments! To clarify, my aim is to comply with Wikipedia guidelines regarding conflict of interest while endeavoring to improve an existing article. When posting the external "white paper", it was difficult to demonstrate how additions would be merged into the existing Wiki article, so I marked existing article content in bold green text. We are very well aware that this content will be open to re-editing post-merge - it is most welcome. As someone new to Wikipedia, I have done my best to adhere to the rules - and I do thank you for ensuring that these points were addressed. NH-Nemesis 21:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release Date

This article states that the Old Farmer's Almanac is released the second Tuesday of September. However, I just bought the 2008 edition on August 30. This statement needs to be updated. Jimtrue 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hole in the corner of the almanac

There is a hole in the corner of the almanac. Craig Ferguson of The Late Late Show says the hole is for hanging the almanac on a nail in the outhouse. He said he was serious but he is a comedian. Is this true? If so we ought to include it in the trivia section. If you know anything about this please tell us about it here. Thanks. --Jon in California 13 September 2007

[edit] Cutting my hair...

Hello.

I was born and raised in East Tennessee, and my family has always referred to the Farmers Almanac for basically evreything. I still use it to when I cut my hair...And I'm in my 40's now.  It's one of the first books I buy at the beginning of each year. Thank ypu for such a WONDERFUL book.   Shelia Tipton.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.184.17.142 (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)