Talk:Coffee table book

Assessment reasoning

My apologies for placing this comment above older comments, which isn't usual wikiquette, but I wanted to make sure it was seen up at the top near the assessment tag...

This article in its current form as of today has a decent picture (at least, a picture that conveys the concept in a basic sense, at least. Remind me if I get around to it to take a good photo of my coffee table at home some time, though, as I've got a good digital camera, decent lighting in that room, and my mother actually collects coffee table books), some good information, including some that clearly took actual research (such as the "first" recognized coffee table book), several subsections including cultural impact, and some good citations. Considering all that, and the fact that the subject itself can easily be conveyed in a fairly short article to begin with, this is no longer a "stub" in my opinion, though it does not meet requirements to go much higher in class than that. No infobox needed, I think, since I can't imagine a type of infobox that would actually fit the article subject, and it's not like Chicken Soup for the Soul, which really does need an infobox. :) Runa27 04:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the picture, but can't upload it just yet due to the fact that I borrowed the camera for it from my mother (my digital camera's on the fritz), and it therefore got downloaded to her desktop instead of my desktop or my laptop (I'll be burning the photos I took to CD and transferring them to my harddrive soon, tonight even if I can manage it). Will post it to this talk page once I have got it uploaded to Wikipedia, so people can decide whether to use the new picture or not (I've had some frustrating experiences with what I thought were innocent attempts to replace an image with a more accurate or attractive or well-taken photo, only to have someone get upset with me for replacing the original image without enough discussion, so hence, I'll just leave it up to fellow Wikipedians to decide, though I do think it's a good photo, emphasizing the coffee table books - of which I include several examples in a nice layout- and featuring nice, warm lighting with little to no noticeable flash. Which of course, took me like six tries to get, heh). :) Runa27 22:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, take your pick if you will from the following:

None are as good as I'd like actually, but they're OK, and they do show the subject a bit better in my opinion than what's essentially a picture of a coffee table. ;) Runa27 18:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Information Needed

This article is currently of the stub class in the assesment scale. Why doesn't someone add the orgins of these books? --Richman271^Hello 19:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless content

"Kramer also appeared on Live with Regis and Kathie Lee, a syndicated morning chat show that became Live With Regis and Kelly in 2000 after Kathie Lee Gifford was replaced with Kelly Ripa, with typical hillarious results."

Why is this here? it's about Seinfeld, and has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Dallas 02:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add this but it was because Kramer had a coffe table book about coffe table books. Otherwise that part isn't really relevant. 74.133.3.222 (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

I agree with the above reply. It should be omitted; will do so now. absolutecaliber

Seinfeld

I´ll erase that Seinfeld thing. 82.99.141.110 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you should get rid of it as much as add it to a "cultural references" or trivia type section

Reversion

Someone keeps reverting this article every so often to an inferior version with the above NPOV, Seinfeld sentence. User:Lord Pheasant just did it. Please knock it off, or explain yourself here. MakeRocketGoNow 13:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is going on here? Is this one person acting through sockpuppets? Or a coordinated effort to disrupt this article? Thesmothete 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment lists a previous version of this article as its example of a stub class article. The linked to version has the blurb about Seinfeld in it so it could be people are just trying to replace the lost information. AndrewBuck 15:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano II put up the Kramer version again - I reverted it. Zakolantern 18:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the future is clear

Hello quarrelling wikipedians! I am a cabal-appointed fortune teller, but if you ask me about the cabal I will deny its very existence. I foresee this article descending into a vicious revert war, and I am offering my services to mediate. I have read both versions, and it seems like they are two sides of the same coin. My proposal is for elements of both articles to be included in the final article version, in other words, a perfect consensus. Reverts do not count as consensus. Remember, we're trying to create a good article here. In the meantime, I hope you will talk to me and let me know where you stand on this. To avoid cluttering this talk page, I suggest we move the conversation concerning these reversions to this page. This shouldn't be too big a deal; let's not let our tempers get the better of us. Thanks! Antimatter---talk--- 02:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Coffee Table Books

There should be a list of some popular/well-known coffee table books, and an image of one. That would greatly improve the article. 212.139.171.139 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I have removed this image Image:Coffee table.JPG because it is a book plonked upon a cheap coffee table - not the ethos of the coffee-table book at all. Coffee table books are expensive, they are for expensive homes and placed upon expensive pieces of furniture, In short that photograph does not fit the bill in any way. Normally coffee table books are placed one upon the other to make a feature of interior design - one on its own is never seen. Giano 19:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be back now.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There. I went and replaced it with the picture by Rune27 that had the best lighting, since I agree with Giano about the previous picture.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Throw Momma from The Train" Reference

corrected One hundred girls I'd like to fuck to One hundred Girls I'd like to pork. Candyhammer 22:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Technological Origins

I thought a big part of the origins of coffee table books was that developments in printing technology in the 60s enabled large books of colour photos to be mass produced cheaply. I looked up this article expecting to see some such explanation that but there's no mention - any print historians out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul J Williams (talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bathroom books

It would be useful for there to be a section on a variant of the concept, the bathroom book, which is presently a redlink. The principal editorial difference is that bathroom books are usually smaller in x/y dimensions but thicker, and full of factoids and anecdotes instead of pretty pictures. The intent, of providing pleasing but trivial, momentary content, is the same. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A companion linked page would be Bathroom reading. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]