User talk:Pennguin

You're a registered user now, so you have a Watchlist to keep track of articles, so that's part of my way of responding so soon. Also, most people make a point of quickly replying to other users. Anyway, welcome again! Basically, the "Tiger Mania" thing might be common in the media or among Woods' fans, but it doesn't need to be part of an encyclopedic entry on him. The article needs to remain neutral, even if it is hard to stay balanced when writing about a guy who's done it all (I'm a big Tiger fan), so we try to keep to writing in a neutral tone. Imagine how a public broadcasting company would talk about him, or how Encyclopædia Britannica would describe him. That's what we try to do. Harro5 03:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

BBC, Encylopedia Britannica and Time Magazine seem to prefer "Tiger Mania" while U.S. National Public Radio uses "Tigermania." The Wikipedia page on Paris Hilton uses the term "celebutaunt" in the introduction and has a section titled "Celebrity." Is that page a suitable model for me to consider?
 * The celebutaunt stuff is cited, and the celebrity section is used to show her importance and also that the focus of her bio is how she became famous by not doing anything. In the case of Tiger, the focus of the article is his golf game, but I think you could add a section on his celebrity. Just use internal links (link to stuff by bracketing it like this ) and cite sources where needed (external links to news sources, preferably). I'll clean it up if need be. Harro5 03:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. It would help other users to follow your conversations if you signed your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~), which renders your user name and the current time and date. Thanks! --TantalumT e lluride 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)