Talk:Farmers' Almanac

message: Hi everyone. I saw in the contributions that User:PleonardFA disclosed that he works for the Famers' Almanac. Just a quick reminder - you can't use Wikipedia as a place to promote the almanac. Its not a soapbox to advertise. See the following: [[WP:SOAP]
Certainly monitor it to make sure no one is writing obvious falsehoods, but you really should not be editing the page of a company at which you are employed. We want to always make sure that articles are WP:NPOV so you can't come on and remove well-sourced information that other editors provide, even if it is critical of the Farmers' Almanac. -- Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an Ad 

message: Why isn't there a section about witchcraft on this entry? Or are the witches controlling Wikipedia, too?
What? Can you clarify your thoughts more? 98.103.160.18 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witchcraft? 

message: Did a little research on "the" farmer's almanac. There appears to be two competing almanacs that both claim to be very accurate in there prediction of future weather patterns. Have seen only one news article that even mentions that there is an "old farmer's almanac" and a "farmer's almanac". Both have web sites, both are books you can buy. I found various news organizations that had articles mentioning the annual debuts of each publication and each almanac's predictions of future weather. Very weird. It is like there are two different universes. One with one almanac and one with another and neither universes aware that others exist.
---
This confusion seems to have crept into this article as well. The first paragraph in the Weather Predictions section says "Scientific studies of these claims have shown them to be false. On average the Almanac's predictions are no better than chance." but both references sited are about the Old Farmer's Almanac's accuracy, not the subject of this article. 71.254.108.219 (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: Merge notice removed since target is an unrelated topic.  Pulled untrue info from the article.  -Howardjp 15:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Removal 

message: :Image:Farmers'Almanac ZP.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 09:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Farmers'Almanac ZP.png

message: :Image:Farmers'Almanac1818 ZP.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 09:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Farmers'Almanac1818 ZP.png

message: What's the deal with the History section mentioning that Geiger and Duncan are Philomaths...?
What is that, is that like a degree or a diploma you can buy off the Internet? :D 88.112.4.174 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philom.? 

message: Currently, this one and the Old Farmer's Almanac (note position of apostrophe) seem to be all there is. 
When I added the "full moons" section here, I misunderstood this to be the "Maine Farmers' Almanac" because (a) it is published in Maine and (b) its website is the primary online source for "full moon names". 
But, as the hatnote correctly (albeit without reference) claimed, the Maine FA was a different publication. 
It was not, however "a 19th-century publication" exclusively, it survived until at least 1972 or 1973.
So this needs some clarification. When did the Maine FA disappear and what happened to it? Was it bought up by this one? 
And were there other Farmers' Almanacs besides these three? Was "Farmers' Almanac" a generic term for an unknown number of publications which appeared regionally, or were there just these three? --dab (𒁳) 13:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Farmers' Almanacs

message: The two Almanacs "The Old Farmer's Almanac" and "The Farmers' Almanac" both claim 80% success but only "The Old Farmer's Almanac" has be tested academically as far as I can discern. The Walsh and Allen article from 1981 refers to "The Old Farmer's Almanac" and there is only one study done that I can find.
The sentence "However independent studies that retrospectively compare the weather with the predictions have not shown them more accurate than chance." is doubly false since there is only a single study and it does not pertain to "The Farmers' Almanac"
I am removing the sentence and the reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4441:A501:38AE:591C:DC03:1D5A (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weather forcasting