Talk:List of English-language book publishing companies

message: Please dab. this page when possible -- Simonides 07:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an introductory list of major contemporary English language literary/ humanities publishers, though anyone is welcome to go into the history of publishing and add some major names from the past, or broaden into scientific/other publishing, or specify the current parent companies (ex. Harvill is now owned by Random UK) and clarify which years the publishers were independent for, etc etc. Like with any other page, if you know how it can be improved, go ahead and improve it. -- Simonides 07:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dab

message: What the heck is Free Publishing? Does it belong here? (I suspect not.) Never heard of it; it's a redlink so I can't follow that way and, being a common phrase, almost impossible to search for online. If no one explains in the next few days, I will probably delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:30, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
:added free press to list. thats probably what it was. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Publishing 

message: Does anybody know the publisher "W. H. Allen"? If so please give information about him/it. 
80.139.231.193 16:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently a longstanding UK publisher. A quick web search easily turns up references going clear back to the 19th century. There also seem to recent imprints with this name; no idea how each was  affiliated. http://www.locusmag.com/index/j9.html gives W.H. Allen Star, W.H. Allen Target, and W.H. Allen/Planet each turning out some titles in 1988, mostly in the fantasy/sf realm, and W.H. Allen turning out numerous titles in the 1980s. Our article on Virgin Books says Virgin bought out W.H. Allen. Hope that helps; I'm sure that you could get any reasonable query answered by Virgin. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  W. H. Allen 

message: Why was Springer-Verlag dropped? Yes, I understand that it has now been merged, but it is a historically very important publisher, and someone could easily be looking for it in this list. - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've now added the former name and also Kulwer who were also part of the merger. --Salix alba (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Springer-Verlag 

message: Lists are usually created when you need more than a category, information in addition to the title itself. Here, that information seems minimal. Couldn't we just keep this as a category and leave it at that? Fagstein 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of these do not have articles. There is no way to do that with a category. - Jmabel | Talk 15:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they don't have articles either an article should be created (if they are notable) or they shouldn't be listed anyway (if they are not). DreamGuy (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The tolerance for a marginal notable publisher should be a little more lenient on a list than for an full article. However the list should be annotated to the point that it is clear why the publisher is on the list. A "pure" list really adds little, it should have a short sentence on each describing the location, types of books published, rough notability. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree with most of what you are saying. see my comment below. i will try to help "fix" this list. i have some experience with the book business, and can probably make this a useful list for readers. hopefully we (not necessarily you, but the global "we")can have the list fixed before the entire publishing business fails, due to aliteracy, illiteracy, and the economics of paper printing. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the point of this list? 

message: I'm fixing the links for the 'egg' disambiguation page and found there is a publisher here listed as 'Egg'. I can find no reference to this publisher on Wikipedia and no obvious entry when searching for 'publisher egg' on Google. This being the case I have removed the link but not the listing (since it may be valid). Alfirin 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed completely it was vandalism see . :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Link for 'Egg' 

message: the name of this article doesnt work. if its english language publishers, it should say so. i would suggest: List of English Language publishing companies and imprints. any thoughts? i will change it to something new, but want feedback (as if anyone is listening) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that this doen't work, but frankly I'd support outright deletion. Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. At best this should be a category, not a list. DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i wouldnt dissuade you from this step. and its a minor task for me, fixing this. i actually just expanded the list of publishers in the category "book publishing companies of the united states", which should help most users of wikipedia more than this list at present. i may even argue for deletion if its nominated. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i moved this article. i dont think this is a notable move worthy of discussion. if im wrong, sorry. but that name was simply too broad. what about comic books, magazines, webzines, newspapers. those are all publishers, yet are not considered part of list. so i think this was a long needed clarification. What someone needs to do is go to the categories that would correspond to this (book publ cos in us, uk, aus, nz, whatever), and include them all. otherwise, its too incomplete. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name must be changed 

message: i removed this redlink as there was no indication from their website that they were anything but a pay to publish company, also known as a vanity press. i would appreciate it if whoever wants this listed here would show some evidence of their notability. please dont revert my edit without reason. i gave my reason for the edit, and am utterly open to being corrected. it appears the person adding the publisher back is associated with the publisher. you will then be able to clarify if your company is a publisher who pays people for their submissions, and not the reverse. again, if im wrong, correct me with references or a full article. even one review of one title published from a good source (british newspaper or magazine, book trade journal, etc. vanity press titles never get reviewed)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black leaf 

message: So how do editors go about distinguishing self-publising companies from vanity presses? Are "legitimate" self-publishers allowed on the list? What is the rationale for excluding vanity presses?  Seems POV and OR are the driving forces in this regard.--S. Rich (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  vanity presses vs. self-publishing 

message: Bernard Geis Associates
Please add. Thks. --99.11.162.138 (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernard Geis Associates not listed 

message: Please add 37 INK--I would have but did not want to mess up the listing method.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaldous1 (talk • contribs) 
: Done. Hope I haven't messed up the listing method! --Deskford (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Works for me! Thank you. Jaldous1 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  37 INK 

message: I'm not clear on what constitues notability for book publishers. Would Blacksmith Books, being the major publisher of English-language books in Hong Kong (outside school books) meet the criteria? It seems to be a genuine (albeit perhaps small) publishing house which has been running for many years. An article here in the South China Morning Post  regarding the publisher.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.247.55.216 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider Blacksmith Books to meet the criteria here if it is notable enough to warrant an article. --Jaldous1 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Well, yes. I guess that's my question. As a customer for many years (is that a Conflict of Interest?) I'd be happy to take the several hours it takes to write a properly formatted, sourced etc article, but I don't want to do that and then find that it just gets deleted for non-notability. I see that amongst the authors that it has published several are considered notable by Wikipedia: Nury Vittachi, Michael Rowse, Jason Y. Ng, David Nunan, John Hung, Alain Robert at least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.247.54.130 (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Write the article first. The article won't be "deleted for non-notability" if you can confirm that the subject is notable and if the article is properly sourced. Biogeographist (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do! I would count that as a notable publisher given the list of authors. --Jaldous1 (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacksmith Books 

message: * The edit notice says .
* The hidden notices say 
Can't have both, so which one reflects the consensus? Paradoctor (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting inclusion criteria