From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citation Tags[edit]

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)

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

Bigger Page[edit]

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)

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)

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)


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