Talk:Modern Library

message: Mention of the Modern Library rankings/ lists (except the reader's lists) has been removed for the reasons outlined here and also at User talk:Gamaliel (notably that it was mostly commercial, disapproved by voting board members themselves, and does not deserve more attention than other lists). The category will be retained however, and everyone is welcome to add the nearly 400 titles on the 4 lists to the category, without mentioning the publisher in the main body of the article. Thank you for your co-operation.
If editors want to convey a sense of the importance of the work or the writer, it is recommended that they insert comments by notable peers or critics, which is the more encyclopedia-like. Please remember that the ML list was made in retrospect and was not a contemporaneous award, which means that sufficient recognition already existed for the works before their selection. 
:Why not eliminate mentions of the reader's lists too?  It's just some web poll made even more ridiculious by mass voting by Scientologists and Randites. Gamaliel 02:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess, but they occur on few pages and they are, after all "reader's lists" - so they clearly tell us more about the readers rather than the books, while the other list tries to do otherwise, IMO. -- Simonides 03:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Here's an edit that needs to be made, and I don't know how to do it.  In the list, under the "M" novels, it lists Modern Library.  Whether or not this list is a vulgar marketing ploy or a useful reading list (probably a little of both), we can agree that Modern Library is not the name of one of the greatest novels of the 20th century.  But when I click "Edit This Page," the list doesn't come up for me to make this simple deletion. Bds yahoo 04:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it the Modern Library article in the category because I thought it was relevant to the category.  If you think it's important to remove it, I'm not going to quibble, but that's my reasoning. Gamaliel 05:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stubborn Error

message: Proposal: "With regard to citation of the Modern Library lists in articles about books, for the purpose of indicating notability or worth, in cases where the editor agrees that the book actually is notable or worthy:
*The Modern Library's "Best" lists are not perfectly neutral, nor are other lists, nor are prizes and awards.
*Nevertheless, presence on such lists or reception of such prizes, while not proof of notability or worth, is evidence of notability or worth. 
*Because of its association with a single commercial enterprise, the Modern Library lists present a unique problem which the National Book Awards, Pulitzer prizes, Booker prizes, Newbery and Caldecott medals, presence on New York Times bestseller lists, etc. do not. 
*Therefore, as an indication of merit, citation of other lists or prizes, or use of other forms of evidence, is preferable. 
*When appropriate, editors may replace citation of a Modern Library list with other evidence bearing on merit or notability.
*Editors should not simply remove such a citation, leaving nothing in its place, because citation of the Modern Library list is better than an unsubstantiated assertion of the book's merit. Such a citation should only be removed when the editor who is removing them can replace them with superior evidence.
Please indicate your vote below. Add comments as necessary. Add choices other than "Agree" or "Disagree" as necessary. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Vote

message: I entered this discussion by way of having references to the Modern Library list deleted from two pages about authors, namely Jack London and John O'Hara. Do I take it that the outcome of previous discussions was a general consensus that in articles about individual books, inclusion of the Modern Library 100 Best Novels category is generally acceptable to everyone, as a replacement for mentioning the list within the text of the article itself?
:Yes. -- Simonides 13:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Authors versus books

message: Is it just me, or does it seem like far too much of this article concerns itself with the lists?  Modern Library is a publishing imprint, not a list. Most of the list material ought to go into its own article. john k 19:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  lists