Talk:Pen and Sword Books

Fair use rationale for Image:Durhampals.jpg

Image:Durhampals.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 03:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Holtsguide.jpg

Image:Holtsguide.jpg 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 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 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Penandsword.gif

Image:Penandsword.gif 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 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 06:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Notability is not inherited, so I must dispute that the notability subsection actualy demonstrates any notability Mayalld (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In light of your comment, I've removed the "Notability" sub-heading. I'm not quite sure what I think about your point-of-view, but I'll need some time to ponder. My first-blush response is to disagree, of course; but when I try to marshal an argument, my reasoning is simply too awkward at this point. --Tenmei (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: As it happens, some of the books published by Pen and Sword Books are often cited by contributors to articles about Japanese history. When I find myself polishing bibliographic citations, I conventionally create a link to the Wikipedia article about the publisher. For this reason alone, Pen and Sword Books does come to my attention on a regular basis. For me, this is sufficient notability. I simply want the link to turn "blue" when I'm tweaking someone else's bibliographic reference. In future, maybe I'll remember to take special note when I do run across such a citation, and I might add a link here as demonstrative "proof" of notability as determined by a random assortment of Wikipedia editors.

Does this sound like a reasonable plan of action? an arguable strategy? --Tenmei (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "notability" tag. Given the range of good quality books and authors published by P&S, it seems that this publisher has some notability amongst notable authors. The rest of us refer to its publications and so it has some notability amongst readers. THe fact that it's a specialist publisher shouldn't detract from its notability. Or are we setting this particular hurdle unnecessarily high? Folks at 137 (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather late to the party, but I have just used two P&S books as Sources, here, Cragside. It is indeed a specialist publishing house, but I think its notability is pretty clear. KJP1 (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)