Talk:Old Farmer's Almanac

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.73.82 (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.73.82 (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - it should not be included in the trivia section because there should not be a trivia section to begin with. I'll fix this tonight. MattDredd (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the trivia section into the rest of the article. I left out the part about the hole because it is highly speculative and unsourced. If you can find something reliable other than Craig Ferguson to back it up, let me know and I can re-insert it. MattDredd (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MattDredd We have the "hole" story included in a video on the Old Farmer's Almanac site and on our official YouTube channel Shyfrog (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

global cooling prediction

Some fodder for future edits, an article talking about this almanac's 2009 global cooling prediction. TMLutas (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that somebody has added the prediction to the article (it was also briefly discussed at talk:global warming).

If we're going to discuss such predictions here (and I have no serious objection to doing so, though I'm not sure the prediction merits coverage) shouldn't the mention of the publication of the opinion of Joseph D’Aleo in this Almanac be balanced by the scientific consensus view, based on analysis of the entire body of scientific research by qualified scientists, that earth is in a warming period?

At the very least, Due Weight would seem to demand a brief mention of the many scientists whose considered opinions differ from Mr D'Aleo? --TS 23:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'footnote 29'

The quote in footnote 29 actually referred to "Farmer's Almanac," not "Old Farmer's Almanac," a different publication. Just so you know.\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.42.193 (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think you're right. There are certainly two websites: wwww.almanac.com (Old Farmer's Almanac, and the site is registered by Yankee Publishing Inc with an address in New Hampshire), and www.farmersalmanac.com (Farmer's Alamanac, registered by one Pauline LaBelle, with an address in Maine).

This is a muddle. Does anybody know what is actually going on here? --TS 23:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Old Farmer's Almanac and The Farmers' Almanac are two entirely different publications. Footnotes 28 and 29 should be reconsidered. Shyfrog (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use cover image

Hello, I am looking for assistance in getting an evergreen cover image into the infobox for the Old Farmer's Almanac. | Since 1792 Old Farmer's Almanac Cover Shyfrog (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no response or activity here in a week, I have proceeded editing the page and made some minor changes to grammar and other styles. If there are any issues with how I've gone about this, I'm open to suggestion and correction. I've read what I can about protocol and am attempting to follow it. An evergreen version of the OFA cover has also been uploaded and inserted in the infobox. Shyfrog (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no response or activity here nearly 2 years, I have proceeded editing the page and made some minor changes to grammar and other styles. If there are any issues with how I've gone about this, I'm open to suggestion and correction. I've read what I can about protocol and am attempting to follow it. An evergreen version of the OFA cover has also been re-uploaded and inserted in the article. Shyfrog (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Continuously Published Periodical in North America

Nikthestunned (talk), I found several references to the Old Farmer's Almanac being the oldest continuously published periodical in North America.

* The American Directory of Writer's Guidelines^[1]
* The Early Republic and Antebellum America^[2]
* Frank Phillips College Library: Reliable Online Sources^[3]

References

As I'm unsure if you need to undo that change or if I can do that, I'm reaching out here to make sure proper protocol is followed. Thanks for your help!

Edit: In addition, footnotes 2 and 3 are irrelevant to the article and paragraph they are attached to: Old Farmer's Almanac. If there needs to be discussion/criticism about one aspect of the Almanac's publication (weather forecasting), then it should be it's own section.

Shyfrog (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Id probably not use the third source listed, as I'm not sure how reliable that page is - but given the other two specific mentions I'm more than happy for you add that claim back into the article

- I only removed as it was an unsourced 'positive' claim. Your sources also confirm the 1792 date so feel free to replace the less relevant ones / move them elsewhere if still useful! Nik thestunned 19:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikthestunned (talk), Thanks, I've reintroduced the claim and added the references. I've also moved the two references you included into the Accuracy section. I welcome any tips or ideas to improve this entry moving forward. Shyfrog (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=0AaVAm-OzsgC&pg=PA400&lpg=PA400&dq=oldest+continuously+published+periodical+almanac&source=bl&ots=Xnvfrh8d2G&sig=mL08FksAQNMgybJr_LpzVitEe0U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFkQ6AEwDGoVChMI5a2s1ISSxwIVR9geCh1jJATz#v=onepage&q=oldest%20continuously%20published%20periodical%20almanac&f=false

[2] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=pWLxBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA830&lpg=PA830&dq=oldest+continuously+published+periodical+almanac&source=bl&ots=xJUiBHuCrU&sig=I66ol-BXhNnJXiJQblPsdrLr-Qw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCmoVChMI5a2s1ISSxwIVR9geCh1jJATz#v=onepage&q=oldest%20continuously%20published%20periodical%20almanac&f=false

[3] ttp://www.fpctx.edu/Students/Lib_ReliableSources.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]