Talk:The New York Times Best Seller list

message: Based on the description on the Times website as a Best Seller list, in spite of the spelling bestseller in the URL, I suggest this article be moved to "New York Times best seller list", or "New York Times Best Seller List".  --Blainster 14:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "bestseller"

message: This page contradicts itself on how books get on the list. 68.1.138.234 02:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: contradicts

message: What is the minimum total number of copies sold of a book that made its way to the New York Times Best Seller list? --Roland 23:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine it varies from week to week and from category to category. One of the reasons why publishers have unspoken agreements to avoid releasing their big works on the same week as each other. 72.133.206.223 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: min copies

message: The section on marketing to the list seems weak--but not sure how to fix.  It's hard to imagine any publisher not doing it, there is no source given for the particular examples given--Barte 14:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: copies

message: I've seen various sources mention the list with a capital L, and various using a lowercase l. However, I cannot find any usage on the NY Times web site of the entire phrase, so I don't know which capitalization they use. Which is correct? If the l should be capitalized, then the page should also be moved. -- Kicking222 13:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the bottom of The Times's Best Seller website is a section called "About the Best Sellers." In it, the word is capitalized. It is also plural. Probably this page's title should be changed to "The New York Times Best Seller Lists." ask123 (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on the capitalization. Most of the time it's used in the singular (common usage rule) and also standard Wikipedia to use singular (thought not set in stone just general guideline). We can re-word the article text for multiple lists. -- GreenC 00:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "List" or "list"?

message: The rewrite took out negative speculation, but it added a lot of fawning puffy positive statements.  We shouldn't make statements like "most-influential" if we can't support them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the statements were un-sourced speculations. If you want to start a criticism section feel free, the most famous and well known is the Blatty case, but that was almost 25 years ago. The truth is, how they make the list is a trade secret and open to change at any time, so there is not going to much material of value beyond peoples opinions, usually angry authors who didn't make the list. I'm not sure what "fawning puffy positive statements" means, care to provide some examples? As for "most influential", please remove "most-influential" from the article. -- Stbalbach 01:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't advocating the inclusion of the removed statements.  I'm advocating the removal of all unsupported statements, and I took a couple out. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Oddly, the List doesn't seem to take into account books bought on Amazon.com. I have a friend whose book would have made the Times List had they counted the Amazon numbers, but they don't, so his book missed out getting on the list. I don't know how one can extrapolate from this to make a definitive statement about the secret process, but I thought I'd mention it. I can provide more details (with published references if desired) if requested (but you should probably contact me via my Talk page since I may not remember to look at this page again). Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Online retailers

message: I think the entry for the New York Times best seller list could be improved if there was a better definition of what a book is.  I love the new categories they have created but why isn't the Bible considered a book?  What are the sales each year of the Bible?  How many other books are not considered in the definition?
Bestsellerplus (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining "books"  

message: Just created. Ikip (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of New York Times Fiction Best Sellers]]

message: Regarding this edit . Just about every publisher of right-wing material in the USA attacks The New York Times Best Seller list for being biased due to its supposed left-leanings and therefore there is a conspiracy against right-wing publishers. This particular case they tried to make it looks scientific with a study, but the study is not peer reviewed nor is it accurate - they look only at Nielsen ratings and not the rest of the metrics used by NYT. It's a bogus, fake, flawed study whose only purpose is to support a conspiracy theory. It's non-notable, conspiratorial smear. Note that most of the criticisms in this article were added by me, I have no problem criticizing the NYT, but they need to be legitimate reliable sources, and not made up conspiracies supported by bogus flawed "studies" by a publisher with a conflict of interest.   -- GreenC 00:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times has now responded so it's getting wider coverage in AP (in the correct controversies section in chronological order). I've added a few sentences to place it in context as part of a larger long-term attack by Republicans and conservative publishers. -- GreenC 15:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right wing attacks 

message: Business fable includes a list of works in this genre, with a separate section for books which have achieved New York Times Best Seller status. I am not sure how to verify this status, as I cannot find a way to search best seller archives. How can I do this? Also, is it even appropriate to have a separate section based on this status? I imagine my questions are applicable to other articles as well and editors here have more knowledge with which to answer these questions. Daask (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Could try this but it's not searchable and it only includes the fiction and non-fiction lists. If you have access to the NYT could search their website. -- GreenC 19:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to search 

message: Regarding diff. The date range 6 August 2008 to 10 March 2016 equates to 396 days and 1 day  (source). Thus the 410 weeks reported in the paper is off by 14 weeks (410-396). I think omitting the number of weeks is the best option as suggested by User:Maxwell Gerald Anderson. -- GreenC 19:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weeks between dates 

message: — Assignment last updated by Thotfuldiscourse (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse

message: # The inaugural list named five fiction and four nonfiction books. Were they listed separately (two lists)? Were fiction and nonfiction separated throughout the "other cities" era?
# Did the "national" list debut in April 1942 with fiction and nonfiction, no other distinctions (two lists)? If not, then what?
# When, probably between 1942 and 1984, did separate coverage of hardcover and paperback books begin? As two categories, or as three with a combined print list? --P64 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing history before 1984