Books Category‑class

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Category This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Companies Category‑class

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles Category This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the ((portal|Companies)) template Tag company talk pages with the ((WikiProject Companies)) project banner Answer requests for comments

See a discussion related to this category at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_14#Category:Alfred_A._Knopf_books

The 2011 discussion linked above ends with decision to keep the Books by publisher category tree. Much of it concerns which of multiple publishers, such as one in the US and one in the UK, is category-worthy.

Some American Library Association annual book awards recognize only American literature, such as the Newbery Medal and Caldecott Medal for writing and illustration in American children's books. So the Newbery and Caldecott committee manuals define American publications. The following quotation appears in both manuals, which are nearly identical. One source: Caldecott Manual (2009), page 65.

FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES – means that the acquisition of the book and the editorial work were done by a publisher with editorial offices in the United States that publishes books under U.S. publishing conventions for a United States market. A book may be eligible if published "simultaneously" (see above) in another country, provided the acquisition and editorial work were done jointly or originated in the U.S.

This is from section B of Appendix I: Publication Eligibility Issues, pp. 65–67, most of which is relevant to grouping book articles by publisher.

According to the ALA and to most participants in that 2011 discussion, the category preface I wrote last month is inadequate where it specifies first or simultaneous editions. The publishers of simultaneous editions are category-worthy only if they participate in the editorial process. (The ALA manual covers that in sections B, G, H.)

Questions:

1. Should we go this way when we can determine one category-worthy publisher by the criterion of editorial work?
2. Regarding American and British editions, should we consider the US or UK one of "simultaneous" first publishers alone to be category-worthy when we know that the writer is American or British? (perhaps extended to a British Commonwealth rather than UK definition)
3. Does anyone know previous discussion of publisher identification in prose? or in ((infobox book))?

(By the way I have been directly responsible for prose and infobox identification of publishers, not for populating categories.)

--P64 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

second of two new sections posted at once

Let me register the mainly separate set of issues in identifying Bertelsmann, Random House, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, Alfred A. Knopf, or someone smaller [walking down the current Bertelsmann corporate structure] as publisher. --P64 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to find any consensus or discussion of the guidance listed at the top of the category, which says "Book articles should appear in subcategories for the publishers of their first or simultaneous editions including paperback originals, their major revised editions, and their translations — not for the publishers of reprints or reissues that differ by minor revisions or by nationality. Books with simultaneous publication in various countries may be listed with each publisher." I couldn't find any, but the criteria was first introduced with this edit.

When, if ever, would it be appropriate to include reprints in this category? —Wingedserif (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Comment - Summoned by bot. Pinging Mercurywoodrose, who added the original text [[1]]. But he/she hasn't edited in a year. Also posting link to this RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Going to explain my rationale for raising this issue. I created Category: Persephone Books books to mark pages for books published by Persephone Books. Persephone almost entirely published reprints, particularly for titles by women authors that are out of print. As such, almost all of its notability comes from its work with reprints or from news coverage about the reprints themselves.

I don't think it makes sense for Category:Books by publisher to be limited only to original editions—most famous books are only now known and accessed through reprints. I do think that a particular book should have a notable reprint for it to qualify to be marked by that publisher's category. fin —Wingedserif (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can see some use for this with rare books. But I can also see that in that in the case of classics, it could lead to a proliferation of categories. How many squazillion publishers have reprinted the works of e.g. Bram Stoker, Charles Dickens, the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen and Daniel Defoe let alone William Shakespeare?
  How could we avoid those extremes without imposing arbitrary criteria or complex subjective criteria?
  Remember that a lot of categorisation is done without ever reading the category page, so explanatory headnotes on the category page are little help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]