Jump to content

Talk:Publishing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Alternative Publishing / Great American Novel

I read somewhere once that there are other countries in the world besides North America - in those countries do they also write the Great American Novel?? Philip Howard 15:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Since too many issues weren't given an answer on the talk page and too the text is too ethnocentric, the article will not, for now, be promoted to GA. Lincher 03:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

organization of article

Many of the articles covered in various sections of Wikipedia are related to publishing, and many of the editors are in some way involved with the topic. This is therefore a key article, and we shoud all think what is needed before we each start rewriting small portions.

For example, I wonder whether there is any point in the lengthy paragraph on Academic publishing, when there is a separate comprehensive article, and there are not similar sections for all the similar specializations of "literary" publishing. In particular, material is obviously needed on electronic publishing, as the leed recognizes.

DGG 01:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

continued

Although this is apparently intendedd as a general survey of publishing, the orientation is entirely to:

  • print
  • conventional techniques
  • small publishers
  • getting published as a literary author.

Perhaps instead of renaming the page, it would be better to expand this one, and move some of the specialized references to new pages. I ask for discussion, especially a term for a page devoted to the process of getting published, from the author's point of view.DGG 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that there is a place for an umbrella Publishing article which covers all aspects of publishing to some extent eg books, magazine, games, videos, music, as well as regional variations. Each specific aspect could then be covered in more detail in its own article. This would probably entail the current article being moved to a more specific name, and a new (briefer) umbrella article being put in its place. Stephen B Streater 09:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Right--but can you think of a good name?DGG 05:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
How about "Publishing process" and a new article for "Publisher"? Jkaplan 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
They are alternate titles, but I don't see how they distinguish.

Commercial publishing for this one, perhaps? and keep Publishing for the general? DGG 07:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

academic publishing

is publishing in connection with the formal organization of research and higher education. It does not include all contributions to knowledge. WP is not written & revised in this manner, and is not connected with any program, and is contibuted to be whomever thinks it suitable. This is about as non-academic as you can get, and--for many of us--this is the attraction--being able to contribute our knowedge without the constraints of more conventional arrangements. The general concept is called open publishing or open source--usage doe not seem to have stabilized. Almost all such publishing is as a matter of course open access, but that's a separate concept. Don't let's weaken WP by thinking of it as part of the academic world--there's another project aimed at a relatively academic version.DGG 04:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why no history section?

Seems like the history of the publishing industry, as well as recent history and impact of the internet on the publishing industry should be here Rycanada 12:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Book World?"

Recently, this article was amended to include the phrase "The Book World" as another way of referring to the book publishing industry. I, for one, have never heard this phrase used in this way before, but I do not wish to simply revert an established user's change without attempting to asses consensus. So, has any one else heard or used the phrase Book World to refer to the publishing industry? Should this change be included in the article? (Full disclosure: whether or not Publishing is included in the Book World DAB page essentially hinges on this point, so if editors think that "Book World" should not be included in the article, I'll take that as a strong indication that the DAB page should not link here.) Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 03:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlie, instead of creating 3 places for this discussion, refer them to the single discussion already occurring at Talk:Book World. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 05:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect, though this discussion is related to the other one, it is also separate, since one is about the content of this article, and the other is about a DAB page. I find it conceivable that, for example, editors may wish to remove the words "book world" from the article, but keep the link from the DAB page anyway, or some other combination of the two, and thus I brought up a separate discussion here. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 06:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed links to blogs, commercial promotion, lists, and links that were not about the topic of publishing but were lists of publishers, courses, etc., per the tag (which I removed) and WP:EL. Cheers Geologyguy 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Web publishing

"Web publishing" redirects to this article, but there's no information in this article about what Web publishing is (and, in fact, it has little or nothing to do with publishing as a whole). So... is there a plan? Did the person who redirected it have something in mind? -Miskaton (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

eBook Readers

It cannot be said that Amazon's kindle leads the market -- Amazon as a matter of policy refuses to publically disclose unit or dollar sales of it's Kindle reader, or the sales of ebooks sold through it. Kindle seems to be more USA-oriented than Sony. They are clearly each important (and I own neither). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.178.3 (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Book publishing centric

I've just added a lot of info about book publishing specifically for this article, however perhaps this should be shifted to a separate page on "book publishing" as it is an enclosed industry with set rules of operation, business methodologies, structures that can be expanded on. For example, I have just started writing a page on licensed publishing which is a massive multi-billion dollar industry which most people think of as tie-in publishing. This would clearly be a separate page to itself. Literary publishing, educational publishing and non-fiction publishing could also be separate pages. Perhaps the publishing main page is simply more about the definition of publishing with small teaser sections which link to larger articles. For example, it would include software publishing, book publishing, magazine publishing, graphic novel publishing, comic book publishing, music publishing, web publishing, children's publishing and so on.

I also added a section on Privishing which occurs in book publishing but may not occur in other publishing industries (any movies been dropped because of lawsuits? Any music?) Mathewferguson (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the people who are most interested in publishing, as a concept, are unpublished book authors, so the skew doesn't surprise me. I've tried to expand the article to at least mention non-book publishing in most of the sections. Perhaps someone else will be able to add to my efforts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Appropriateness of images?? - Publishing is DIFFERENT from printing and bookselling

Neither of the images in this article relate to publishing as such.

Printing is often confused with publishing. Yet neither implies the latter. (Printed works can be private i.e. not published. And published works need not be printed - they can be hand-written or e-documents.)

Also, the text assumes the standard model of commercial publishing. It seems to ignore self-publishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbibby (talk • contribs) 09:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

REQUEST - Would it be possible to have a list of major publishers? Greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.48.150 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a directory service. Also: such lists have a nasty tendency to turn into spam magnets. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

right correspondent in de.wikipedia.org?

Hi, I was wondering, that there is no German article about. In German wikipedia there is an article about "Verlag" http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verlag which describes a general company that does publishing But also there is "Verleger" http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verleger which describes the person who is responsable/ owner at the company type "Verlag" that stuff gets published. Any idea why there is no language interwiki link? -- P.oppenia (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs Updating

I went through and did some minor edits on this page but the article needs some rewriting and organization as well as updating and citations. There have been a lot of changes to this industry in the past couple of decades and this article should reflect where the lines between history and current processes are. I agree with another poster that it looks like some of the authoring has been done by "potential" self-published authors. I'm adding this to my long to-do list as I have some books on the history of publishing and can find information about current processes and practices. Jaldous1 (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jaldous1. Important information from the section Publishing#Recent_developments should be given more emphasis in the Introduction section. Furthermore, the discussion of Peer review in the section Publishing#Academic_publishing does not fully explain and emphasize the critical role of peer review in a publisher's due diligence prior to the acceptance of scientific reports. There is a sentence that describes peer review, but more emphasis on its importance is required. --Zeamays (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Publishing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Publishing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Publishing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Neologism tags

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

About the [neologism?] tags that I posted in the article intro. In the book publishing industry “non-paid publishers” as defined, are called commercial publishers or sometimes, standard or traditional publishing. The use of the very uncommon term “non-paid” adds confusion to an already misunderstood subject. Likewise, with the “Paid publishers” term. It is properly called, self-publishing. With no objections, I plan to edit accordantly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms JeffFive (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Publishing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Web to Print

I think it is important to add a small blurb about web to print in the Printing section of this article. Web to Print is currently the medium where most print is heading, therefore it is important to include in an article about publishing. NationalInterest16 (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

The entire paragraph under "Publishing as a business" beginning "It is a common misconception" is a mass of uncited assertions. It seems to me to fall short of verifiability policy. Given there is a well sourced example of a cost breakdown immediately preceding, it's not clear what that paragraph adds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.195.224 (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

unsourced contents

I have removed a huge chunk from the article that was unsourced. Graywalls (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  • @Graywalls: I didn't object to this massive deletion because more than a few of these sections seemed simplistic (the things jumps for high-level industry descriptions to super-granular things about copy-editing). But if the issue was the lack of citations, why didn't you just tag it with [citation needed]? There are publishing companies who publish a sort of "life cycle of a book" document that could support this. If the problem is citations, there are decent sources for this kind of thing.

Question ...

"Publisher" redirects here, but I don't see, in this page, any specific information about the job of a publisher (the individual, not the company)...

Publisher redirects here, disestablishing the Proper Noun item. The gerund 'Publishing' is a great article about the gerund. Publisher on the other hand is depicted in mostly all literature types and genres by Location, Name of Publisher. Perhaps what may be needed is a Publisher by territorial entity or Publisher by alpha or time-period.Paptilian, PpT'lln ,  ( P. sig'd   ).. 20:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Short description

Andyjsmith, what are you talking about when you say in your edit summary that you reverted my short description because there is nothing wrong with the original? There was no original short description until I provided one, at least not one that existed anywhere else except Wikidata. If you view the page in a "private" or "incognito" browser that doesn't have any scripts enabled, then you will see what I'm talking about, heck if you just view the actual content you are editing rather than simply just hitting the "undo" button, you can easily see the page has no original short description. And, as for there being nothing wrong with the original, well maybe not for Wikidata, but for Wikipedia the purposes and intent are different so the guidelines are too, so the first thing wrong is that its too long as I pointed out in my edit summary about the suggested 44 character limit. It should also be a very broad, general and basic description which are things that you opposed in your edit summaries, but is not in accordance with the guideline. We aren't trying to give a high level detail overview of the subject just a brief summary in just a few words. Also, I Made a bid for suggestions in my edit summaries and you've not offered anything other than reversions that are not backed by any policy or guideline. Some suggestions or other collaborative effort would be nice for a change and appreciated. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, now I see in the edit history that someone did import the short description from Wikidata beforehand, and it got removed by the time I came along due to vandalism so I guess there was an original after all. It's still too long though, but not worth debating. Leave it in if you want. At least it has one again. Huggums537 (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: NinjaAlleyCat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

International Publishers' organisation

Suggest remove external link. Or is it important organization? Karlaz1 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Definition

Publishing is considerably more than "distributing" - which is a publishing trade term for selling (wholesale) books which the seller did not necessarily publish.

Rewriting

Well, over to the rest of the world. I think this is now a reasonable structure and sufficiently informative, but. . .

David91

Publishing should also be connected to the authors as well. Like from an author's point of view, getting a piece of work can be seriously challenging. Or even the vast amount of steps it takes to get something published in this day and age. Firetoadbob

Headline text

Wha does publishimng really entail?. Is there more than meets the eye?

Rename article

The subject Publishing is much greater than just printed works. If the intention of this article is to refer to this subsection of publishing, I suggest renaming it appropriately, and keeping the article Publishing for the coverage of publishing as a whole. This is a good place to discuss this. Stephen B Streater

Should book publishing be its own far lengthier article with a link from here?

The article was originally heavily written in regard to book publishing, containing a lengthy section on acquisition, contract, royalty breakdowns and so on. It has been revised to be more general but still is swayed towards book publishing.

In the revision, sourced, well-written and useful information has been wholesale deleted. The linked article history of books does not cover book publishing in detail as this article did.

For example, slush pile has an article and is known as part of book publishing. But does not appear in history of books or here. The article notes publishing traditionally relates to books and a few other things but then the section on books is significantly cut down.

Someone trying to find an unbiased overview of the publishing process cannot find it on wikipedia at the moment. The role of agents, book packagers, slush pile, the tie-in of movies from books and how it fits into the world of entertainment and larger culture.

Essentially, there are various articles on parts of book publishing (paperbacks, intellectual property, tie-in/licensed publishing) but as a whole, book publishing doesn't have a comprehensive article covering it.

The eBook/epublishing article is exhaustive and detailed but this one is quite sparse.

I'm thinking there should be a book publishing article that could salvage deleted material from this one.

If the intent of the publishing article is to be shorter and mainly a portal to different types of publishing then perhaps subsections should have less info but a link to a longer article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewritingfish (talk • contribs) 01:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Publishing/Archive_1&oldid=1234077269"