Talk:Mass market paperback

message: I removed the trade paperback image (Image:Popular Trade Paperback.jpg) because the Harry Potter cover taken from Amazon.com is simply the source image used for the cover and gives no idea of the size of a trade paperback compared to a mass market paperback. A better image should be found to replace it, and the new image should also be added to the trade paperback article. No sense in having a picture of a trade paperback in the mass market paperback article but not in the trade paperback article. As a sidenote, I suggest not using any of the Harry Potter paperbacks as examples. I've seen these things in bookstores and whether they should be considered trade or mass market seems debatable, considering they're larger and more expensive than an average mass market paperback but smaller and less expensive than an average trade paperback. DT29 22 May 2006
:I apparently lost the edit that added that image to the TPB article. Dang! Too many stacked edits. (again)
:Disagree with your action of removing it here. May as well spit in someone's face. Just as courteous and respectful of my time. I can see your point in some respects, but anyone that's seen one will have memory triggered as far as the size difference goes by that pic I installed, especially likely with a Potter book, I'd guess, as they are so ubiquitous. Don't know of many TPB's that would be anywhere near as recognizable, and the proportional differences are obvious to most folks eyes, though I guess not yours.
:OTOH, I wasn't too happy with that image myself, esp. with the Amazon arrow dingus attached. Hence, the better action would to have been to find a better image and overwrite that one. At the least, you should have dropped me a note to see this talk as well. Best regards, <B>Fra</B>nkB 05:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just removed the uninformative Harry Potter Amazon image in the process of making some grammar and style edits, thinking that a photo that doesn't show the actual dimensions of the book is no help, and doesn't belong in the mass market paperback article anyway (I see now that the same image is in the Trade Paperback article as well, where it is at least in theory relevant though still not informative).  Please don't take offense because some other editors disagree with an edit you made -- there's nothing personal about it.  I guess we need someone who has a digital camera to replace the image, though. --Jim Henry 19:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade paperback picture 

message: I suggest this could probably be merged with the paperback page.  By and large, most people define the paperback as the mass-market paperback as defined here.  As I've noted on the paperback page, it can be differentiated from a bunch of other formats -- trade paperback, and the precursors of the modern-day paperback, each to have their own page -- but I suggest that most people regard paperback and mass-market paperback as synonymous.  I haven't done this merge yet because I'm interested to know if anyone has a different way of organizing this material so as to be useful and informative.  Accounting4Taste 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Trade paperback should be merged too. Tags added at paperback. --Quiddity 06:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?