Talk:Publishing

more names in the list of publishers

Should we not include names like HarperCollins, Hachette Livre, Macmillan Publishers, Simon & Schuster, Scholastic, Wiley, and Springer Nature in the list? Kolkata.gurgaon (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to be a directory of companies, lists should be kept to necessary examples rather than trying to be exhaustive. MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern about keeping lists concise and avoiding directory-style content. However, these publishers are among the most influential in the industry, and mentioning a few key names could provide useful context for readers. If an exhaustive list isn't suitable, perhaps a brief mention of 'major international publishers such as HarperCollins and Hachette Livre' could strike a good balance. I’d love to hear other thoughts on this! Kolkata.gurgaon (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Book publishing as separate article

See earlier discussions:

• Should book publishing be its own far lengthier article with a link from here?
• Book publishing centric

-- M2545 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed: In Mainstream publishers section:

−

The author receives a royalty on each sale (and sometimes an advance on royalties when the book is accepted).

+

The author receives a royalty on each sale (and sometimes an advance on royalties when the book is accepted). Authors typically do not receive royalties until the publisher has earned back the advance payment.

• Why it should be changed:

It gives more detail about royalties and advances.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

how book advances work in traditional publishing Goldenpen1 (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done This is a self-published source. Refer to WP:SPS for when (under limited circumstances) you can use these types of sources. thunkii (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

References