Talk:Easton Press

Advertisement

Surely this page shouldn't list all the books that they sell? This page is more like a catalogue than a encyclopedia page. I suggest deleting all book lists.--192.102.214.6 (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this reads like an advertisement. This page should be about, if anything, the history of the company, not it's book lists. Reference to the webpage should give people the books they sell. I'm thinking of removing the lists in a few days if there is no objections. --RossF18 (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. You have no idea how useful those lists are. Especially The 100 Greatest Books Ever Written list. The book publisher definitely merits a few articles, so perhaps beginning a second article with a list of the popular collections they have published would be a good idea. I would definitely like to read more prose about Easton Press. Criticism, history, legacy, etc... Trendy Sammy (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Useful or not (and by the way, I do have some idea), they really have no place in an encyclopedia. These lists are supposed to be found on Easton press own webpage or other personal websites or blogs. This is not a listology. List of books published is doing an advertisment service to Easton press, namely "buy these books" which has no place at wikipedia. And besides, if the lists are really so usuful, they will always be preserved in the page's history or you can print them out. Or go to Easton Press page itself to see what is actually being sold. Or get their book catalog. In other words, there are many many places for you to get book lists and one of them should not be in an encyclopedia article. You yourself note that you'd like another article about the history and an article just with the lists. Well, this article was supposed to be about the history of the company, not about lists of books they publish. While a mention of publications will be included, the mention will not be in a form of the list and will not include an exaustive list. Besides, none of these lists are sourced, so another reason for deletion would be lack of citation. And if any such large deletion is made, I'd move the deleted portion to the talk page to be added back if a consensus against deletion forms. Currently, there doesn't seem to be one (either direction) or I'll hold off and wait for more imput.--RossF18 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous! I scoff at your comment that "they will always be preserved in the page's history or you can print them out"? Wiki-elitism! How many people ever look at the history of a Wikipedia article, and how many that do can pinpoint where they can find that chunk that was removed? Ridiculous!Trendy Sammy (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you're really so concerned about preserving the list, please see hundreds of websites with lists I found via google. See ALL OF THE BOOK LISTS - a page from which I suspect the information was pasted into the Wikipedia from. Also see List of Bests and listology. Also see here: http://www.eastonpressbooks.com/leather/product.asp?code=0001 and http://www.abebooks.com/docs/Community/Featured/easton.shtml?cm_ven=nl&cm_cat=com-2004-11&cm_pla=body&cm_ite=easton.--RossF18 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the lists should be removed from this article. No one is going to contribute information on Easton Press to this article with that monster in the way. However, let's determine which collections of Easton Press are notable, because some of them definitely are: "The 100 Greatest Books Ever Written", "Library of the Presidents", "Masterpieces of Science Fiction", "Books That Changed the World", "Great Books of the 20th Century". Some have a more international appeal, others are more American. This is neat stuff. Don't turn this article into a dullard.Trendy Sammy (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your offensive comments have no place on Wikipedia either. While I provided constructive reasons for my way of thinking, you have done nothing but scoff at my remarks and called me an elitist and a "monster." Wow. Why? Because I disagree with you and have the gaul to articulate my disagreements while providing you with websites where you can find the information you claimed to want to preseve. Hmm. Very strange reaction for someone claiming to an egulitarian. --RossF18 (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me kindly clarify. I thought that one of your comments was wiki-elitist and I scoffed at it. I don't consider you a monster. I consider the lists that are in this article to be monstrous. They take over the article when they should really be placed in a separate article titled maybe "List of notable collections of Easton Press books". I do have to say that I am very much against taking a deletionist view towards this article. Easton Press is a very good publisher of books and when I first came to this article I was overjoyed (really, I was) to find everything I needed here. Those lists are wicked. Let's keep them. So what shall we title this new article that will hold these lists?Trendy Sammy (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Notable Collections from Easton Press would be an adequate title.--RossF18 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Or "List of popular collections from Easton Press"? Actually, the title will probably reflect what we are able to find sources for: popular collections or notable collections. I believe there is a difference there?Trendy Sammy (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Collections from Easton Press would take the subjective judgment out of it. I don't think any of the collections actually have Notable or Popular as per Easton Press's own titles of collections (preferring greatest or masterpiece it seems).--RossF18 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is then that we have to be complete. If we focus on popular or notable collections then we can have a finite list potentially. Whether or not the books within the collections are the "greatest" or "masterpieces" has no bearing on whether or not these Easton Press collections are notable or popular. I don't have a great overview on Easton Press so I don't know how prolific they are, and how useful a complete list of all their collections would be. Or how practical. That would become advertising in a way if it was exhaustive. Maybe a section titled "Other less notable/popular collections" could be included at the end of the "list of notable/popular collections from Easton Press".Trendy Sammy (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually popular is probably the better term. It is far more likely that reliable sources will be found noting how popular these collections were, rather than how these collections were notable for this or that. They are simply mass produced leather bound editions that have been bought by many home owners and done a wonderful job of disseminating these works to people.Trendy Sammy (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Popular in the title sounds good to me. --RossF18 (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

so should we settle on "List of popular collections from Easton Press", move the lists there, and let these two articles come into their own? I would really like to see a section about "Advertisements", discussing where Easton Press advertises (National Geographic, other magazines?) and a "Criticism" section, lauding and denigrating the publisher.Trendy Sammy (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Advertisement section is really Marketing, so changed to that. --RossF18 (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That article from the San Francisco Chronicle is really enlightening. I went through Google Books looking for some longstanding criticisms, but haven't checked out the web yet. I wonder how the publisher has changed over the years, were they always owned by MBI, because from that SF chronicle article they seem like schemers rather than serious publishers. Yes, criticism is always interesting. Good job.Trendy Sammy (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need an Easton Press wiki and a List of Books Printed by Easton Press. I know of many many people who run to wiki for info about a publisher and want to know what series of titles they printed. I think it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. Look at Gnome Press, they got into the History and then into the Books published. Something like the Folio Press wiki, no one's had enough energy to make a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.165.138 (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Photos

I have removed a single line of text.

I have added a low-res photo of the catalog cover to the side. Bluestrike 2 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation

The article needs a citation on which publishers/collectors consider EP "ostentatious" and "overpriced". 170.20.11.116 please include this info if you can. --Poshzombie 04:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Still reads like an Advertisement

There's a lot of marketing stuff in here, and is there any rationale for the particular books listed? Are the Van Allsburg-illustrated books the significant ones? I don't have a problem with a short list of prominent or significant publications by Easton, but it should have a source. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)