Talk:New York Times Best Seller list

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New York Times Best Seller list article.

Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start

Contents

[edit] "bestseller"

Based on the description on the Times website as a Best Seller list, in spite of the spelling bestseller in the URL, I suggest this article be moved to "New York Times best seller list", or "New York Times Best Seller List". --Blainster 14:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] contradicts

This page contradicts itself on how books get on the list. 68.1.138.234 02:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] min copies

What is the minimum total number of copies sold of a book that made its way to the New York Times Best Seller list? --Roland 23:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copies

The section on marketing to the list seems weak--but not sure how to fix. It's hard to imagine any publisher not doing it, there is no source given for the particular examples given--Barte 14:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "List" or "list"?

I've seen various sources mention the list with a capital L, and various using a lowercase l. However, I cannot find any usage on the NY Times web site of the entire phrase, so I don't know which capitalization they use. Which is correct? If the l should be capitalized, then the page should also be moved. -- Kicking222 13:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

The rewrite took out negative speculation, but it added a lot of fawning puffy positive statements. We shouldn't make statements like "most-influential" if we can't support them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the statements were un-sourced speculations. If you want to start a criticism section feel free, the most famous and well known is the Blatty case, but that was almost 25 years ago. The truth is, how they make the list is a trade secret and open to change at any time, so there is not going to much material of value beyond peoples opinions, usually angry authors who didn't make the list. I'm not sure what "fawning puffy positive statements" means, care to provide some examples? As for "most influential", please remove "most-influential" from the article. -- Stbalbach 01:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't advocating the inclusion of the removed statements. I'm advocating the removal of all unsupported statements, and I took a couple out. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online retailers

Oddly, the List doesn't seem to take into account books bought on Amazon.com. I have a friend whose book would have made the Times List had they counted the Amazon numbers, but they don't, so his book missed out getting on the list. I don't know how one can extrapolate from this to make a definitive statement about the secret process, but I thought I'd mention it. I can provide more details (with published references if desired) if requested (but you should probably contact me via my Talk page since I may not remember to look at this page again). Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)