Talk:Peachpit

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Apple Inc. Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citation Tags

Am I allowed to remove the tags at the top of the page or do I need to keep them in place until this page has no more "citations needed" on it? Also, will a lack of citations result in being penalized? Or does it just mean those items have a high probability of being challenged?

Andyptg (talk 00:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather you didn't remove it until the problem it identifies is resolved. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Page

This article has improved greatly in the last couple of weeks, but it still relies almost entirely on information sourced from the company itself. This means it is still weak and open to being changed should anyone dispute it, particularly as the article makes some very definite claims about the significance and importance of the company's past record. As it stands anyone would be within their rights to remove all those claims. The tag at the top has two purposes; It lets anyone who who knows of cites know that they would be much appreciated, and it also reminds the reader that this article falls short in the standard of verifiability required for Wikipedia and what it says should be taken with a pinch of salt. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, true, it's more of a stub, however, PeachPit does have a sizeable history outside of its parent company, and as one of the 2-3 major (e)book publishers in the Mac market, has enough notoriety to have earned its own page.

Simply being a subsidiary should not be enough to kill the page or merge the content. By that logic, FileMaker Inc.'s page should be merged into Apple's, since FM is a subsidiary of Apple.

[disclaimer: I have assisted with the writing of several peachpit books as a freelance author. I have also worked on books for a couple of peachpit's competitors, namely Wiley and Prima]

Johncwelch (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I hope I'm doing this right...

It's a sad sign that Peachpit has become so trivialized that it may not even get to keep its own page. I've written DOZENS of books for Peachpit, many of which were before it was swallowed by publishing conglomerates. I'd like to join John in arguing that it deserves its own page because of its rich history prior to Pearson, etc. and its longtime strength as a Mac book publisher.

Mlanger (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Hey, how about a redirect for Peachpit Press to here? 168.103.172.60 (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]