Talk:Farrar, Straus and Giroux
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
It would be nice if someone included the pronunciation!
Importance of the firm
- The first sentence should explain what Farrar, Straus and Giroux is, i.e. an American publisher. Later in the lede it mentions their famous authors, but that claim is currently tagged as lacking third-party references, so it may be removed. If you can find a good reference or a particularly apposite quote describing their reputation and their authors' fame, by all means include it in the lede (as long as the reference/quotation isn't from the company or associated parties). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I will say it again: lists of authors in a publisher article should ONLY be those authors exclusively published by them, otherwise, the proper list is of individual books. if John Author has 10 books from FSG, and 2 from Scribners, his name shouldnt be listed with either publisher, but his books should be listed. get it?(mercurywoodrose)18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- That does not make sense. Authors may work for a number of authors or the publisher they write for may be acquired. It seems that if a publisher is known as the author's publisher they should warrant a mention, regardless of whether they have written at other publishers.
Doesn't North Point Press merit its own page, given that the company existed for a number of years and established its own reputation before becoming subsumed into FSG? 850 C (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- of course it does. the coverage of book publishers here is ludicrous. the lists of authors (not books) is an absurd act of self promotion, and the lack of historical documentation of which house first published which works of literature is an orwellian erasure of history. god damn any editor who contributes to this cacophony. better to just write "Mostly Harmless" for the content of the publisher articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)