Talk:Folio Society

---

Membership

The article says "A member simply has to buy four Folio Society books each year.", but according to http://www.foliosociety.com/aboutus/how_to_join.php there is no yearly requirement: "Joining us involves buying just four books, after that you can buy as many, or as few, as you wish." Does someone know if there is a yearly requirement? -- Pseudovector Tue Jul 4 22:38:21 UTC 2006

I've been a Folio member for several years. I have been required to purchase 4 books every year in order to maintain membership.138.162.128.55 16:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Authorship

Was this written by the Folio Society, or just a very satisfied member?

The user who originally wrote this (Marksroc) has only this page listed in his list of user contributions. Make your own conclusions. Goffrie 17:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement

This article is an advertisement. Which is a shame because I came here looking for NPOV encyclopedic info, not a sales pitch (I already know FS makes good books). I've tagged it with Template:Advert for now. I would edit it, but no nothing about the company. -- Stbalbach 05:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New Text

I have today added a completely new text for this article, replacing the text that was rightly considered to be an advertisement. I am a member of The Folio Society but am not otherwise connected with it. With regard to the earlier query, I understand that one is indeed required to purchase four volumes per year of membership, and my text reflects this understanding.

I have retained the illustrations from the original entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sordel (talk • contribs) .

Thank You, Sordel! Much better, well done, a great addition. -- Stbalbach 21:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Partisan Editing?

My redaction of this page was altered by an unnamed editor to remove the following comment: "At the same time, [Folio] has progressively undermined the value of many of its books in the second-hand market by a combination of discounting and reprinting, suggesting a publisher that is attempting to reinvent itself in a difficult marketplace." The rapid decrease in resale value of recent Folio titles is an observable fact and I have heard booksellers comment on it. Furthermore, this erosion of value is clearly driven by two conscious strategies on Folio's part: namely the reprinting of existing editions and the frequent offer of existing boxed sets at a negligible cost to rejoining members. It seems to me that mention of this phenomenon is relevant to an article on a publisher and does not fall into the area of unfair editorial comment ... but equally I can see why someone connected with Folio might want to remove mention of it. In any case, I have not reverted the edit, but am leaving this comment for those who check the discussion. Given that a previous redaction of this page was marked as an advertisement, I will raise this page as a possible target of partisan editing if further alterations of this sort are made. --Sordel 09:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who removed it, but I didn't contest the removal of it, and I have no connection to the company. It does sound and read like original research POV. If you want to re-add it, suggest using sources and simply document what other people have said. -- Stbalbach 16:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems like editorial comment to me. The second-hand book market has absolutely nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on the Folio Society. They can discount and reprint books as often as they want, why on earth wouldn't/shouldn't they? The above comment suggests that the Folio Society has some agenda to damage the second-hand book market. Sounds like the writing of a bitter bookseller, not a factual observation that can be backed up with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proudpom (talk • contribs) 05:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

[Folio] has progressively undermined the value of many of its books in the second-hand market by a combination of discounting and reprinting

Proof?

suggesting a publisher that is attempting to reinvent itself in a difficult marketplace

Suggested by whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.127.126 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LPS 1.jpg

Image:LPS 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WNDB.jpg

Image:WNDB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement

After a careful reading and re-reading of this article, I am concerned that it may be being edited by persons with a conflict of interest. I am not he first to notice that the style and content of the article reads like advertsing. Wikipedia is not a brochure or a place to reproduce ad copy. If the advertsing tag is removed without explanation or substantive changes to the style and tone of the article, I will feel it necessary to take additional steps to wikify this article. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the tag as I felt it was not justified. I am not associated with the Folio Society though I have bought their books along with about 140,000 other people. Could you please explain specifically what you feel is wrong with the article and what sort of criticisms you have of them. I am not saying they are saints but as far as I can see it is just a book club that produces some very nice, if rather expensive, books. The only criticism I can think of is that the books are always worth a lot less second-hand than you pay for them, but that would apply to all new books. The article appears to contain purely factual material notwithstanding the editing by the user Foliosociety. Perhaps you are not objective about them yourself? Look forward to your views. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a COI etc warning to the Foliosociety user talk page but I really can't see anything actually wrong with the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of peacock terms in the article, such as "specially commissioned", "inspired by", "very exclusive", "well-designed", "deluxe, limited edition", "decorative bindings", and "striking full-colour illustrations". There is little or no explanation of the corporate notability of the firm outside of describing their high-quality products. The article on Nonesuch Press is more concise and better-written - this article is substantially longer than the article on Exxon Corporation; the Folio Society is less well-known with a shorter corporate history. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find most of those terms in the current version. Have you checked it recently? The company is definitely notable, being well known in the UK, USA and Canada and comparisons with other articles are not really relevant. You could expand the other articles that are too short? Thanks.Philafrenzy (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the advertising tag as the article seems OK in its current version. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the tag; perhaps you should read the text again as every single one of the peacock terms I identified are still part of the text. Do you feel strongly that the article in its current version is neutral and encyclopedic in tone? I feel that it reads like ad copy. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a Folio Society volume? The point about them is that they are "well-designed" with "decorative bindings" et al., compared to other books on the market. They are a deliberate premium product within the publishing world.

Objectivity is about accuracy, not merely the removal of all adjectives. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, I question your removal of the advertising tag at Folio Society without a little give-and-take or attempt to reach consensus. The terms used in the article - terms I took the time to clearly identify and list - are much more suited to ad copy or an essay than an encyclopedia. Could you take the time to explain why you think that the use of terms like "striking" "exclusive" and "deluxe" are appropriate outside of an editorial statement?TreacherousWays (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

On a personal note, I ask that you retract your insulting suggestion that I am soapboxing. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You dispute the notability of Folio editions, which suggests that you really are unfamiliar with them (If you're unfamiliar with them, yet reading articles on publishers, then I guess you're just not in the UK - unfamiliarity isn't a problem, but you ought to become familiar before judging). Then after two editors rework the article over several days, only hours after the tag is quite rightly removed you restore it. Those are the actions of someone who has already decided what their right answer is and isn't prepared to research or even read the article to see if they're correct. Your only edits to this article have been to tag it as an advert three times in a week, despite the opposition of three other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Half of the edits you identify, Andy, were made by a SPA called "Foliosociety". None of the edits you identify addressed the peacock terms that I outlined. Referring to "striking full-colour illustrations" is fawning, and indisputably styled like ad copy. Most of the references were published by the Folio Society or written by their employees. I politely noted that to an uninvolved editor the article read too much like ad copy and you have responded with repeated insults and bluster. I have made an entry regarding this article at the NPOV noticeboard, and I will begin editing the article for style, not content. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just reverted your recent edits as they go too far and we are losing valuable detail in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Per BRD, are you willing to discuss the changes I suggested, or do you still feel that the article as it stands needs no editing? TreacherousWays (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Then that's a COI issue (which I don't see as seriously problematic here, although it's a real issue to raise). However you didn't raise a COI issue about the editors, you complained that the content was an advert. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article could probably be toned-down a bit but my argument is that almost everything in it is factual and the article is not fundamentally an advert and the tone is not fundamentally wrong. It just needs a few minor adjustments to tighten it up a bit. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made some changes which may address your concerns. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

While I am happy with the changes you made, I disagree with you regarding the tone of the article and the need for change. Perhaps we could go through line by line? The Folio Society was conceived by Charles Ede(1921–2002). Since nobody was impregnated or gave birth, it is more accurate and succint to state: The Folio Society was (founded or incorporated) in 1947 by Charles Ede, Christopher Sandford (of Golden Cockerel Press), and Alan Bott. I eliminated the birth-death dates for Ede because they weren't included for the other two founding partners, but have no strong opinion regarding their inclusion. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Philafrenzy, you might also check out the discussion pages on the "see also" wikipedia pages. This is not the first book-seller article that has been criticized in this way. The difficulty seems to stem from the use of words like "high-quality" (which is subjective) as opposed to "leather-bound" or "gilt-edged" which are objective facts. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"Conceived" is the sort of pretentious flannel that's probably unavoidable if you work in publishing (I refuse to write cover blurbs - they rot your objectivity). It should go, as you describe. However this sort of florid wording doesn't make an article into an "advert" to be deleted as spam. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I wrote several times, Dingley, possily you were busy impugning my motives. I have never suggested deletion. Using your own words, this article suffers from "florid" wording. Using somewhat more accurate words, it suffers from puffery, and if you are involved in publishing you ought not be defending the practice. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If you understood a little more about the subject you're pontificating on, you'd understand what a private press is and why Folio isn't one. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The subject I'm pontificating on, Dingley, is puffery, and the failure of this article to stick to verifiable facts. "Gilt-edged" is a fact. "Letterpress" is a fact. " ... deluxe, limited edition publications ... " is puffery. As for "private press", I don't recall using that particular phrase; can you provide a diff? Perhaps you read "privately held" in my draft space and misunderstood the term? A privately held company (like The Folio Society) has not offered shares for sale to the public. And, yes, that would be very different from a "private press", which I didn't mention at all. Anywhere. TreacherousWays (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Private press" is in the article content that you've repeatedly deleted. Might I suggest that you read it before deleting it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Folio Society is not a private press. If it *was* a private press, that would be an encyclopedic observation. Charles Ede founded The Folio Society. That's an encyclopedic observation, though Ede is otherwise unencyclopedic. Using the phrase "inspired by" is puffery because "to be inspired" suggests "... aroused or guided by or as if aroused or guided by divine inspiration ... " It might be acceptable to say that Ede was influenced by the publications of specific private presses, provided that specific influences could be identified and referenced. If, for instance, he used a unique binding process also used by a specific private press and mentioned this during an interview, that would be encyclopedic. Trivial, but verifiable, referenced, and encyclopedic. I honestly think that you ought to take a step back from what you have been saying to think about what The Folio Society is and is not. It is a for-profit privately-founded and privately-held company in the business of printing and selling books. Selling the works of Shakespeare doesn't make them as notable as Shakespeare. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Marketing sentence

In the subsequent decades, the Society developed the technique of publishing series such as the collected novels of Dickens, Trollope, Hardy, Elizabeth Gaskell and Conrad over several years, as a means of attracting and retaining members. This unreferenced sentence broadly suggests that The Folio Society pioneered the publication of collected works as a marketing strategy. A rather more subdued - and accurate - sentence might be, "In 1971 Folio was purchased by John Letts and Halfdan Lynner." A separate section in the article outlining a representative sampling of the authors re-published by The Folio Society might be appropriate. An breathless year-by-year listing seems excessive. TreacherousWays (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Illustrators

From the article: "... Many noted illustrators have worked for Folio. Charles Keeping provided drawings for the complete novels of Dickens, while Francis Mosley illustrated the works of both Hardy and Conrad. Paul Cox has contributed comic illustrations for, among others, seventeen volumes of novels by P. G. Wodehouse. Neil Packer contributed illustrations to I, Claudius and Claudius the God by Robert Graves. The Society has supported a number of emerging artists, and also contemporary wood-engravers, especially Frank Martin, Peter Forster, Richard Shirley Smith, Peter Reddick, George Tute, Joan Hassall, Simon Brett and John Lawrence. Yes. Well, most of the wikilinks are either red-linked (no article associated) or just wrong (the Frank Martin link goes to a disambiguation page with no artists). I suggest that the following sentence is more informative and to the point: "Noted artists who have contributed to Folio Society publications include Francis Mosley (the works of Hardy and Conrad), Paul Cox (P. G. Wodehouse and others), and Neil Packer (I, Claudius and Claudius the God by Robert Graves). Joan Hassel and John Lawrence - recognized for their wood-engraving skill - have also illustrated Folio Society books." That last sentence is a bit ham-handed, but avoids the misleading links. TreacherousWays (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Folio Society facilitites

It would be useful to have some idea of the scope and nature of the Folio Society facility; how automated the process is, tons of paper consumer per year, gallons of ink, types of presses, antique equipment still in use, etc. I will look into this, but any help would be welcome. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Designer Bookbinders

Here's something possibly encyclopedic: "The (Designer Bookbinders) society has annually sponsored and promoted The Bookbinding Competition since January 1975, when it assumed responsibility for the Thomas Harrison Memorial Competition, founded in 1957." Publications of The Folio Society have been the set book for the bookbinding competition for at least the past few years (I saw entries from 2002 onward), there have been Folio Society employees on the judging committee, and a Folio Society prize is awarded. The reference web site would be here. Not sure how notable the competition itself might be, but this could flesh out the article without using the words "breathtaking" or "magnificent". TreacherousWays (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Facsimiles from the British Library

" ... The society has also recently introduced a series of deluxe, limited edition publications at higher prices, often facsimiles published in conjunction with institutions such as The British Library ... I removed this sentence because it was out of context (the rest of the section dealt with letterpress-printed books) and because of the puffy terms "deluxe" and "limited edition". There is a kernel of information here, though; broader distribution of otherwise-unavailable documents is notable, as is the special access granted for purposes of reproduction. Perhaps another editor can help by finding out what was reproduced and where the reproductions ended up? TreacherousWays (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed from "Production trends and bindings"

" ... Since his first binding design in 1981, David Eccles has become one of the most prolific of Folio’s designers. Amongst his many projects for Folio has been the series sometimes known as "Victorian Epics of Exploration" which began with Richard Burton's The Source of the Nile in 1993 ... " The illustrator David Eccles has no web site, and I have been unable to find any reference whatever to his contributions. A search of The Folio Society website yields only two books, even though Eccles has certainly done more work for them than just that (The Complete Winnie the Pooh, for instance). Any references for this artist would be very welcome. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Community involvement

If anybody is following this, still, I'd like to propose the creation of a section tentatively entitled "Community involvement". The idea is to be able to include the Folio Society involvement in providing the set books for the annual "Designer Bookbinders" competition, recogized as " ... the principal society in Great Britain devoted to the craft of hand bookbinding ... "[1], and to explore the Folio Society involvement with the British Library, which includes charitable donations [2] and sponsorship of the Folio Society Gallery and the reproduction of rare books and maps.

Folio Prize

Unable to locate information on who won the prize. Is this prize in any way noteworthy? Text removed to talk area pending some sort of justification for inclusion.

Main article: Folio Prize

The Folio Prize (previously called the Literature Prize) "recognises and celebrates the best fiction from around the world," on the condition that the book is published in the UK and written in the English language. Founded by Andrew Kidd, Managing Director of literary agency Aitken Alexander Associates, it is open to writers from any country in the world. The recipient is selected by The Folio Academy, a group of over 100 writers and critics, not by publishers or agents. The first Folio Prize is due to be awarded in March 2014.

TreacherousWays (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Cover of Tristram Shandy Folio Society edition illustrated by John Lawrence.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)