Jump to content

Talk:Cadence Industries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attempt for middle ground after three reverts

[edit]

The creator of the page has three times completely reverted attempts by another editor to edit it.

While specific points can be debated, others involve basic spelling, grammar, and such Wiki policy/guidelines as that the lead should summarize the article's contents. As a third party, I wish to do a point-by-point comparison of the two versions and ask editors to comment so that we may reach, likely, a middle ground. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Independent of me, a Discussion has been started below these six initial comparison points. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point comparisons

[edit]

1) Infobox

Products = drugs, health aids, vitamins

Products = drugs, health aids, vitamins, magazines, comic books

Comments

OK, then let us include "magazines, comic books".--Spshu (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


2) Lead

Cadence Industries, formerly Perfect Film and Chemical Corporation, was an American conglomerate owned by Martin "Marty" S. Ackerman.

[Same as above, plus this sentence]: From 1968 through 1986, Perfect / Cadence was the parent company of Marvel Comics.

Comments

  • Lead should summarize whole article. Above sentence and more should flesh out the lead. In addition, Marvel Comics is a major international brand and seems notable enough to warrant mention in the lead. I would add that Pocket Books, a major brand in its day, also warrants mention. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marvel Comics was a brand of Magazine Management. Cadence was not the direct parent of Marvel. Pocket Books as far as I know was not owned by Cadence, Popular Library was. --Spshu (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3) First sentence, "History"

Perfect Film and Chemical Corporation (Perfect Film) was form in 1962 by Ackerman from...

Perfect Film and Chemical Corporation was form in 1962 by Martin "Marty" S. Ackerman from...

Comments

  • First, both versions say "was form in 1962". This should be "was formed in 1962".
  • I agree with Spshu that having "(Perfect Film)" in parentheses clarifies further mention, establishing that the same company is meant by that shorthand. I agree with Farpointer that the article body must be a whole, separate from the lead, and that at first mention, the full name of the company founder should be given. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That fine if you think so regarding using the full name of the founder, I just found that redundant to the whole article. --Spshu (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


4) Second sentence, "History"

Hudson was a a mail-order firm and Equality Plastics Inc. was a consumer products distributor. [footnoted here.]

Hudson was a a mail-order pharmaceuticals firm, [footnoted here.] and Equality Plastics, a consumer-products distributor. [same footnote as above]

Comments

  • First, both versions say "was a a mail-order" and double "a" should be corrected. Also, after first mention, "Inc." isn't needed, and both versions say "Equality Plastics Inc." in the previous sentence.
  • Both footnotes above were cited by Spshu. The cite for the first says Perfect did "film processing and mail-order sales of drugs and vitamins." The cite for the second says Perfect did "film processing and mail order drug sales...." Saying "Hudson was a mail-order film" seems incomplete: What was the product that it was sending by mail order? Spshu's cites give those products ("drugs and vitamins" taken together are "pharmaceuticals"), so they should be included. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is incomplete directly from the source. The Comics Alliance article establishes that Cadence was a "mail-order pharmaceuticals firm" not Hudson National. Hudson could have more products than just pharmaceuticals or was a outsourcing mail order company repurposed just for Cadence's pharmaceuticals. --Spshu (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So then it seems as if no source is saying that Hudson did mail order, only that Perfect did. In that case we should remove the descriptor from Hudson, or find a Hudson-specific citation. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source give that Hudson is mail order but not what they send through mail order. Did find a blog post about it being Hudson Vitamins, but blogs are not useable. --Spshu (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5) Next sentence, "History"

Perfect Film sold off Whelan drugstores and the Pathe Films Lab. [footnoted not quite here, which goes to page 36, when this information is on page 32. It takes a lot of searching to find unless we say in footnote "p. 32".] [next paragraph] Perfect Film purchased Popular Library, a paperback book company.

Perfect Film and Chemical sold off Whelan drugstores and the Pathe Films Lab, [footnoted as above] and purchased Popular Library, a paperback book company. [citation request]

Comments

  • I agree with Spshu that with the shorthand "(Perfect Film)", as noted at #3, we don't need to say fully "Perfect Film and Chemical".
  • I agree with Farpointer that having two sentences begin "Perfect Film sold" and "Perfect Film Purchased" is choppy and that since they have balancing phrases they can be combined into one sentence.
  • I also agree with Farpointer that the Popular Library acquisition does seem to need a footnote.
  • Re: both versions: For chronology, we should say when Whelan and Pathe were sold. The cited Feb. 10, 1969, New York article doesn't say. It could have been any time from 1962 on. The dates of sales seem like notable pieces of any company history and are missing from both versions. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't know when exactly when the Whelan drugstores and the Pathe Films Lab takes place, but seem to (atleast with Whelan) to the initial companies merged to form the Perfect Film. Popular Library is cited in the Time article tagged at the end of the next sentence ("Magazines: New Man for Curtis". Time. May 3, 1968. Retrieved 6 August 2011.) as happening previous to Perfect Film's involvement in Cirtus Publishing. And Farpointer has ignored my indicating that this is the source for Popular Library's purchases. She some how putting these two together is a better time line when we cannot at this time establish from our source we now have when those units were sold.--Spshu (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what the controversy here is. It seems purely a technical change to combine two similar sentences that begin the same way. All three things (two sell-offs, one purchase) happened prior to May 1968. And there seems no harm in adding a footnote is an editor thinks something isn't cited clearly. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • When she combine them it was for the timing. But they seem to be unrelated purchase and sales. Popular Library was in 1968 and unknown for the sale of Whalen drugstores and Path Lab but the Whalen stores are related to the forming/merging companies into Perfect Film. So it seemed best to include sale of Whalen Drugstores and Pathe Lab in the forming paragraph. Continual marking them as "need cite" when told that the source is in the article is disruptive editing. If it was just a matter of something is not clearly cited then just add the ref tag for the source and stop disrupting the article.--Spshu (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No disruption meant, and I know by now that you don't necessarily mean to sound harsh. All good. I'm very proud of how together (and with a good nudge from the perhaps oversensitive Farpointer) we made the article better than any one of us could have made it alone. Sincerely, it was very, very good to work with you.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6) Next sentence, "History"

Perfect Film loaned $5 million into Curtis Publishing Company in 1968 at the request of Curtis' primary loan holder, First National Bank of Boston to exend its loans.

In 1968, Perfect Film loaned $5 million to Curtis Publishing Company, publisher of the Saturday Evening Post, at the request of Curtis' primary loan holder, First National Bank of Boston.

Comments

  • Near the end of the paragraph in Spshu's version, it says "Curtis Publishing shut down the Saturday Evening Post." I agree with Farpointer that we need to first establish that it owned the Saturday Evening Post.
  • I agree with Spshu that "Curtis Magazines" and "Curtis Publishing Company" are two different articles, and link should be to the latter.
  • I agree with Farpointer that it's redundant to say "loaned $5 million...at the request of Curtis...to exend (sic. - extend) its loan." Not sure how loaning something additional isn't the same as extending a loan. In any case, not sure it's needed — pertinent thing seems to be that Perfect loaned $5 million to Curtis at the bank's request. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the source, First National Bank is extending the loan that it gave to Curtis Publishing based on Perfect Film's loan to Curtis. Otherwise they may have made Curtis pay the loan in full most like forcing a bankruptcy which would like not get First National the balance of the loan back. Curtis Pubishing ownership is established in its own article and in this article in my sentence about closing it down: "With all these attempts to revive the Curtis' main publication and lack of a purchaser, Curtis Publishing shut down the Saturday Evening Post in 1969".Spshu (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7) Next few sentences, "History"

In the fall of 1968, Martin Goodman sold all his publishing businesses to the Perfect Film and Chemical Corporation ... Perfect Film sells 40 million dollars worth of securities in June and July 1968 ... Curtis Publishing shut down the Saturday Evening Post in 1969. Perfect Film purchased Curtis Circulation Company that same year from Curtis Publishing.[1]

Curtis Publishing shut it [note: Saturday Evening Post] down in 1969. Perfect Film purchased Curtis Circulation Company that same year from Curtis Publishing ... In June and July 1968, Perfect Film sold US$40 million worth of securities ... That fall, it bought out publisher [[Martin Goodman (publisher)|Martin Goodman] — owner of Magazine Management Company, the parent of Marvel Comics and other ventures, and Magazine Management a subsidiary.

Comments This one's trickier, since it involves chronology.

  • I agree with Farpointer that the June and July 1968 material should go before fall 1968 material.
  • However, I could go either way on the 1969 closing of Saturday Evening Post. On one hand, it makes sense to keep all the late-1960s Curtis material together in one paragraph. On the other hand, 1969 goes last in this immediate section's chronological progression. Any thoughts on the pros and cons of these two ways of addressing this?
  • Couple of minor technical things. I've seen "US$" in many articles. I think for worldview it's good to have it at first mention. Any thoughts for or against? Also, Spshu established the shorthand "Perfect Film" in parentheses earlier, so we should continue using it here, rather than "Perfect Film and Chemical Corporation". Finally, "Perfect Film sells" needs to be past tense: "Perfect Film sold". --Tenebrae (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Farpointer's version make it nonsense in just mentioning Magazine Management (MM) a subsidiary. It is that Magazine Managment became the parent of all the Goodman group of corporations (and was one of them too) sold to Perfect Film. MM is not a subsidary of Goodman as it reads (lack puncuation too. It was also established in the opening paragraph that this is an American conglomerate, so it isn't abolutely necessary. It seem that the purchase of Curtis Curc. being tied to the purchase of Populary Library and MM group, as this would give Curtis Curc. natural partners in in new company group thus connected.--Spshu (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8) Pocket Books paragraph

Discussion

[edit]
  • Use Farpointer/Tenebrae versions - Rather than clutter the items above with point-by-point feedback, it is clear that the Farpointer & Tenebrae suggestions in all cases are more consistent with WP policies and better for WP readers. Furthermore, the reverts by editor Spshu are tendentious and argumentative. Spshu should cool it --Noleander (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
argumentive? Changing the Wikilinks for Curtis Publishing Company to Curtis Magazines|Curtis Publishing repeatly dispite point out that that it is wrong. She introduces a "Citation need" dispite being pointed out that the next sentence has the source? Introducing Pocket Books into the article when its Popular Library was owned by Cadence. The whole Pocket Books paragraph was unsourced when the rest of th article was sourced. She was being disruptive to the article based on these error she continued to reintroduce into the article. Spshu (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. Whatever you men want to do is fine. I acknowledge Tenebrae's attempt to help. I was wrong about Pocket Books but not about the other things.--Farpointer (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you're discouraged, Farpointer. I've been working with Spshu on a couple of other related pages, and we're developing a collaborative relationship based on give-and-take and compromise. Sometimes we all just have to pull back and cool off, and I respect that you seem to be doing this. I hope this doesn't sour you on Wikipedia. Spshu and I are each working in good will, and I think the article will be better with both your contributions than either of them alone.
In the meantime, since everyone seems to agree on the Pocket Books paragraph, I'll go ahead and take that out.
Spshu, what do you think of the other points and compromise suggestions in the numbered list? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cadence Industries. 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:

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) 22:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference nym was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cadence_Industries&oldid=1206504474"