Talk:Printer's key

Clarification question

So you always go by the lowest number, both in the printing list and the year list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.169.237 (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, you've got it right there. That's the convention, and I don't recall ever noticing a book that bucked it. — ¾-10 00:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If the year of printing is not mentioned, how can one trace it using the printer's key? -Polytope4D (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting Pointillist's recent edits

I don't mean to pick a fight with @Pointillist: by reverting her or his edits, but they seem to have been motivated by—or at any rate to be consistent with—a theory of editing that I think I've seen at work elsewhere on Wikipedia, which seems to hold that encyclopedic style must be parsimonious and as dry as possible. Removing all colloquialisms, all subjective sentiments, etc., so that a passage reads as though it might have been written by a machine, does not necessarily make the passage clearer or more accurate. Sometimes it just makes it duller. There's no reason why Wikipedia articles shouldn't have a charming style, as long as the style doesn't unduly draw attention away from the substance, confuse the reader, or introduce error.

Even so, I probably would have let the changes stand if they hadn't included the following:

With each successive reprint, the publisher needs to instruct the printer to change the impression number, and removing the lowest number is easier and less error-prone than it would be to introduce a new number each time.

In the final clause, "it" seems to refer to "removing", which makes no sense. (I realize that "it" actually refers to "to introduce a new number", but by the time the eye reaches that verb-phrase the mind is already confused.) Further, in the usage I'm familiar with, persons may be error-prone, but actions may not: actions may be more or less subject to error, liable to error, susceptible to [or of] error, or likely to invite [or involve] error, but for some reason they are never "error-prone".

These are all minor quibbles, and admittedly stylistic; but together I think they justify me in reverting the text to its former state, given that there really was nothing wrong or unclear about it to begin with. I hope others, and particularly Pointillist, will agree. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining but your ad hominem is misplaced on this occasion. I re-wrote it because the claim "the theory is that the printer is less likely to make a mistake if he is only removing the lowest number" is just air-headed speculation (now currency on various blogs) by someone who's never worked in a print room. The actual reason for using a number line is cost. It takes less than a minute to erase something from an existing litho plate (using an emery stick or a removing pen) or cut out type from a letterpress forme, whereas adding fresh type requires several steps that span multiple production disciplines. Anyway, you are welcome to leave it in any state you like, I won't edit-war with you. - Pointillist (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Very sorry if I made Pointillist feel personally attacked. That was not at all my intention, and I don't think I engaged in ad hominem argument. If anything I was excessively deferential and tentative. I will venture now to point out that the changes I reverted didn't eliminate the assertion that Pointillist now calls dubious: they merely reworded it, substituting

removing the lowest number is easier and less error-prone than it would be to introduce a new number each time

for

the printer is less likely to make a mistake if he is only removing the lowest number, rather than introducing a new number each time.

That proposition may indeed be dubious—I'm not qualified to judge; but it is at least supported by some authority, in the form of a statement from HarperCollins publishers, which the original text quotes practically verbatim. Pointillist offers no authority for asserting that cost is the "actual reason", and seeks instead to discredit the author of the HarperCollins statement by accusing him or her of "air-headed speculation", and by asserting without evidence that she or he has "never worked in a print room".

If Pointillist has a published source that casts doubt on the article's assertion, she or he should cite it. If not, he or she should remove the "dubious" tag. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, I'd already looked in a lot of places, including Oxford Reference online and Credo Reference. Not a sausage. I don't think "Printer's key" is a common name for this, and of course "number line" has a much wider meaning, so it has been rather frustrating. I've searched the Bodleian catalogue for "Book publishing" and found a couple of titles to check if/when I have the opportunity. I found one reference to "printer's key" on ebrary (here) but I'm not sure that's talking about the same concept. Anyway, I haven't been idle. As for the current "reference" I wouldn't put any faith in an anonymous blog that only has one entry. Anyway, do whatever you want. I'm sure it's garbage, and when I can prove it, I'll come back. Happy editing. - Pointillist (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see what Pointillist comes up with. I agree that an anonymous statement, allegedly from HarperCollins, posted on an anonymous web log with only one entry (why did somebody create a blog just for that?) is not a good source; but it does seem logical (even if it turns out to be incorrect), and in the absence of better authority, I'm inclined provisionally to credit it. Hopefully, Pointillist's efforts will produce better information from better authorities. For what it's worth, I venture to speculate that the term "printer's key" may be from American printers' or publishers' jargon, and British printers and publishers may have a different term for the same object, which might explain why Pointillist's researches so far have come up empty. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding references

The sole citation on this article (claiming to be HarperCollins but actually just linking to a random blog) is very clearly not a reliable source, so I've removed it (and the otherwise empty "References" section) and added an "Unreferenced" cleanup template to the top of the page. "It seems logical" is not enough to justify the inclusion of an unreliable source in the article, or include a speculative or potentially incorrect claim in the article. I've also added "citation needed" tags throughout the article to indicate some of the statements that need to be properly cited. V2Blast (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Harcourt Brace

My edition of Richard Wilbur's Molière has EE and FF in the printer's key. Does anyone understand this?--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)