This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Added an external link Nirvanahoy ( talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"making the first mass-produced dolls in honor of living people": That's not true - there were many Fanny-Elssler-dolls produced in her lifetime by French and German manufactories. 84.46.59.76 ( talk) 16:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I found a new reliable source to support "Madame Alexander's sale to Dollie and Me". The source currently being used is a dead link, and I was not able to find an archived version of it. So, I marked it with a {{ deadlink}} and was going to add the new source shown here as an inline citation to support the text, but stopped when I noticed that a mixture of citation styles is currently being used in the article.
Some citations use templates while others do not. WP:CITESTYLE says that no one style is preferable over another as long as it is an acceptable style on Wikipedia; The most important thing is consistency. WP:CITEVAR says the the style used by the first significant contributor should be deferred to unless there is a consensus to change to another style. The first reference added to this article seem to have been made in February 2009 by this edit ; That, however, was simply a bare url which is not really desirable because of possible link rot. This edit made in December 2009 used a {{ cite web}}. So, is it acceptable to consider this style the one all subsequent citations should defer to? Personally, I find using templates easier, since all you have to do is add the parameters; the software will take care of everything elso. Others, however, may feel differently. Unless somebody objects, I suggesting adding templates to all of the citations throughout the article for the sake of consistency. I also suggest that the date format for the "dates" and "access dates" given in the citations be made consistent as well. Since this article appears to have been written in American English, per MOS:TIES I suggest using either the all numerical "yyyy-mm-dd" or the written out "Month Day, Year" format. Please discuss. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The article's infobox had listed the company's name simply as "Madame Alexander" until it was changed to "Madame Alexander Doll Company, LLC" with this edit by Bea112w with the edit sum saying "the company was started as a doll company, Many people started to collect dolls later, but Madame herself insisted that dolls be played with and loved. It is a doll company of all types of dolls." There is, however, no way to verify what someone's intentions are unless they are mentioned in a WP:RS and on Wikipedia it is verifiability, not truth that matters. Since no source was provided to support the name change, I have reverted the edit per WP:PROVEIT back to the version prior to the change per WP:STATUSQUO so that this can be discussed.
Both the sources Isaac Mizrahi Inks Deal With The Alexander Doll Co. and Kahn Lucas Acquires Madame Alexander Doll Brands refer to the company as "Alexander Doll Company, Inc." while the company's own website uses "Madame Alexander". It is quite possible that the name has changed over the years, and the company is referred to in a number of ways, but Template:Infobox company#Parameters says the "The full, legal name of the company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof" is to be used. There should be some source which can be used to support that name whatever it may be. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Madame Alexander. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Added an external link Nirvanahoy ( talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"making the first mass-produced dolls in honor of living people": That's not true - there were many Fanny-Elssler-dolls produced in her lifetime by French and German manufactories. 84.46.59.76 ( talk) 16:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I found a new reliable source to support "Madame Alexander's sale to Dollie and Me". The source currently being used is a dead link, and I was not able to find an archived version of it. So, I marked it with a {{ deadlink}} and was going to add the new source shown here as an inline citation to support the text, but stopped when I noticed that a mixture of citation styles is currently being used in the article.
Some citations use templates while others do not. WP:CITESTYLE says that no one style is preferable over another as long as it is an acceptable style on Wikipedia; The most important thing is consistency. WP:CITEVAR says the the style used by the first significant contributor should be deferred to unless there is a consensus to change to another style. The first reference added to this article seem to have been made in February 2009 by this edit ; That, however, was simply a bare url which is not really desirable because of possible link rot. This edit made in December 2009 used a {{ cite web}}. So, is it acceptable to consider this style the one all subsequent citations should defer to? Personally, I find using templates easier, since all you have to do is add the parameters; the software will take care of everything elso. Others, however, may feel differently. Unless somebody objects, I suggesting adding templates to all of the citations throughout the article for the sake of consistency. I also suggest that the date format for the "dates" and "access dates" given in the citations be made consistent as well. Since this article appears to have been written in American English, per MOS:TIES I suggest using either the all numerical "yyyy-mm-dd" or the written out "Month Day, Year" format. Please discuss. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The article's infobox had listed the company's name simply as "Madame Alexander" until it was changed to "Madame Alexander Doll Company, LLC" with this edit by Bea112w with the edit sum saying "the company was started as a doll company, Many people started to collect dolls later, but Madame herself insisted that dolls be played with and loved. It is a doll company of all types of dolls." There is, however, no way to verify what someone's intentions are unless they are mentioned in a WP:RS and on Wikipedia it is verifiability, not truth that matters. Since no source was provided to support the name change, I have reverted the edit per WP:PROVEIT back to the version prior to the change per WP:STATUSQUO so that this can be discussed.
Both the sources Isaac Mizrahi Inks Deal With The Alexander Doll Co. and Kahn Lucas Acquires Madame Alexander Doll Brands refer to the company as "Alexander Doll Company, Inc." while the company's own website uses "Madame Alexander". It is quite possible that the name has changed over the years, and the company is referred to in a number of ways, but Template:Infobox company#Parameters says the "The full, legal name of the company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof" is to be used. There should be some source which can be used to support that name whatever it may be. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Madame Alexander. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)