Talk:Penguin Classics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article 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. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.


I've noticed that there are several titles entered more than once. The introduction states that some titles were published in more than one edition, so I have to ask if entering them like this is intentional, and if so, is it necessary to do list them this way? --Bacteria 02:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The list (and indeed, the introduction) are very reminiscent of the description given on In the list provided there, some titles were repeated because a given title might have been translated multiple times or other reasons. A few examples off the top of my head:
The Divine Comedy translated by Mark Musa and also by Dorothy L. Sayers and Barbara Reynolds (think that's her name--anyway, whoever took over translating the third volume after Sayer's death).
I've fixed that one, I think. Radagast3 (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The Bhagavad Gita in a prose translation and also in a verse translation.
Homer's Odyssey and Iliad, again in prose and verse versions.
Now as for whether it is necessary to repeat the titles in this listing, I would say: only if further information is given to distinguish between versions. --Tachikoma 12:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Surely the Beowulf instance is a cock-up, since it links to the same article in each case. On the other hand, if there are different editions published as Classics – e.g. a 'popular' edition with no editorial apparatus, in addition to a couple of alternative translations - then list them all. But they should at least give a hint why they are being duplicated. Ricadus 18:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a cockup and untranslated version [1] MeltBanana 00:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This article requires an update, or a new section. I noticed that the Penguin set seems to have been removed from the catalogue recently. At the same time there is a new, still more comprehensive set available at - look for "Penguin Classics Complete Library". - See also the article at the New York Times website ( quoting a Penguin official that in the old set "there were approximately 200 titles that did not make the cut due to limited availability, most often because they were on our schedule to be completely revised". - Some of these may have been included in the new set. -- HT, 9 July 2007

I've added more introductory material on the philosophy behind the series, and included a "Design" section that needs expanding (it should refer to Jan Tschichold, for example). Radagast3 (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Design" section has been expanded, partly with material from the Penguin Books article. Radagast3 (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Penguin Classics Library Complete CollectionPenguin Classics — The complete collection was a bundle of books sold about a year ago, and is not the list represented, which includes books released since then and books not included in that bundle. —Cosprings (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC) (Section created by Sam Staton (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC))


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose, with alternative suggestion. There are two entities here: the Penguin Classics series, and the bundle. It would be more appropriate to create a new page about the series at Penguin Classics. so there would be two pages: one shortened page about the bundle, and one decent page about the series. Sam Staton (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I oppose your idea. Two articles would only complicate things; that collection is unavailable anyway, hardly notable. A comprehensive list of books in the series is much simplerCosprings (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
What you are proposing is to make an article about a topic that doesn't currently have an article in wikipedia. I think the correct protocol in this situation is to make a new article about the topic, not to alter an existing article, about a different concept. I think this is correct even if you want to move a significant part of one article to another. You say that the current topic is hardly notable. I agree that it's not incredibly notable, but I think it is notable and perhaps worthy of a short article. (I don't propose to keep two lists of books, though.) I'm not especially bothered about it, though. Sam Staton (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
  • Comment As it appears we have a discrepancy as to whether this article is a giant list of books, an article on The Penguin Classics Library Complete Collection, or an article on Penguin Classics, how about a compromise? Would something like Penguin Classics Library be feasible? This would no doubt include the long list, can easily have a section about the Penguin Classics in general (would need to be written), and then the section about the Complete Collection? JPG-GR (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts, having just one article is probably enough. There can be a section abut the complete collection but the main article can be about the series. The title that Cosprings proposed is probably OK for this, unless there's a reason for the "Library" suffix... I changed my mind because I've had a look at what links here, and there's nothing that should link to the "complete collection", so it's not really notable enough to have its own page. Thanks for you patience! Sam Staton (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.