Talk:Custom media

I removed the listing for a specific custom publishing company from this entry. This is an entry about custom publishing and custom media -- not a directory of custom media companies. There are probably a hundred or so other firms that could be listed. Rather than do that, the appropriate thing to do is to link to the trade associations that have directories of such firms. One of those directories includes the firm listing removed. There are many ways this entry could be improved, so I encourage others to add to it.

- Rexhammock

I will continue to remove links added to this entry that promote one specific custom media company. (I don't link to my firm.) There are links to three directories of such firms. If you know of other such directories and would like to add a link, feel free. However, under the guidelines of Wikipedia, this entry should not be a directory, itself. Please add to the helpfulness of this entry, but if you merely want to spam link to your firm, don't waste your time. If you want to discuss this issue, feel free to join in this discussion.

Rexhammock 20:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

If the people who want to add links to their firms on this entry would like to start an entry of custom media companies, I believe that would be appropriate. Adding such a link to this page is not. This is an entry about what custom media is, not a directory of custom media firms. Perhaps you could base such a list on the entry for the Wikipedia entry: List of advertising agencies. It would be a the 'Wikipedia' thing for someone to aggregate all the U.S. custom media firms listed in both the websites of American Business Media and the Custom Publishing Council. Likewise, listings of custom media firms in other english-speaking countries from their respective associations would be good. I further suggest that such a listing be alphabetic and not be by revenue (as in the advertising agency entry) as there is no independent arbitrator of such information (as with advertising agencies). I assume the logical place for someone to put together such a list is: List of custom media companies.
-- Rexhammock 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Want daily coverage of the custom publishing industry? Please check out my news blog: www.CustomPublishingNews.com [1]. I think it would be a useful resource for people interested in the topic. Please review it and if you think it is worthwhile, include it as an external link. Thanks, Don Lipper LipperCustomPublishing [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonLipper (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree this isn't an appropriate place for mentions of specific companies.

My specialty is in editorial positioning and content development and production, and I've tried to flesh out this aspect of the article.

I hope you feel my changes enhance, rather than detract from your article, Rexhammock.

mediaspert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.161.8 (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are clear guidelines and directions on what a wikipedia entry should contain. I have removed sections of this entry because it did not comply with those guidelines. Most important: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should be written from a neutral point of view. Everything that is written as fact needs to be referenced by a verifiable source. Your opinion is not a verifiable source. Your experience is not a verifiable source. Your company's website is not a neutral point of view source. There are lots of good suggestions in the Wikipedia Manual of Style that explain what a Wikipedia entry should be, and not be.

RexHammock 16:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexhammock (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Custom media. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141230080603/http://www.dcpubs.com/DCP-Blog/September-2014/Print-is-the-New-Black/ to http://www.dcpubs.com/DCP-Blog/September-2014/Print-is-the-New-Black/

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) 19:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply