Talk:Mack (publishing)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mack (publishing) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Original synthesis, or just advertising
editThe very first version of this article, by a special-purpose account active for just one day, told its readers:
Over a year and several editors later, this had evolved all the way to
- ^ The Photobook: A History Volume III, by Parr and Badger (Phaidon Press: London, 2014)
That surprised me, as I didn't remember P&B saying much about individual publishers. (About Lustrum, maybe; and self-publishing versus conventional publishing; but little more.)
I looked in the book just now. Sure enough, it makes no such identification. Its final chapter is on photobooks that use others' recycled (if you wish, "appropriated") photos. The order within the chapter is more or less chronological. Toward the end there are indeed profiles of books published by Mack. The fact that they were/are published by Mack seems to be unremarked. "Mack" does not appear in the index. The very last book profiled was not published by Mack.
This stuff about "the current leading force in the photobook genre" is enthusiastic "original synthesis" at best. To me it looks more like commercial boosterism. The rest of this article should be viewed with suspicion. -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Not "MACK" but "Mack"
editA note to the AS12576 ORANGE-PCS user (most recently 95.151.70.235) in particular (as Lopifalko already knows this well):
Many companies like to put their names in FULL CAPITALS. Sanyo did. Sony does. Magazines and so forth do so as well: Life is an example. Pop groups often do.
Wikipedia ignores this. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Therefore "Mack".
On the other hand IFF there's convincing evidence that the company's name is more commonly pronounced /ɛmejsikej/ (loosely, "em ay see kay"), then we can go with "MACK". -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)