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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Is this page necessary?
I fail to see how Wikipedia benefits from having two articles on Pimsleur. The company only sells one product, so it seems to me that we only really need one page.
Personally, I'm not fussed whether that's this page or Pimsleur language learning system, but I suppose what would make most sense would be to merge the material from that article into this one as the company profile information will be of use to some people.
Prof Wrong (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mods I talked to recommended the company history be a separate page from the theoretical method page. Same as Paul Pimsleur's bio page is separate from the Pimsleur method page. I guess it's similar to how Rosetta Stone wikepdia pages are structured too. Apaka.
Advertising on Wikipedia
The whole "Audio" part is written like an advertisement. Empty slogans from the back of the box with no basis in fact. Just as someone tagged in one sentence - citation needed, indeed!