Talk:Franklin Library

I appear to have subscribed to a collection in the early 1980s that does not exactly appear here. It is closest to the 100 Greatest Books of all Time (1974-1982); but has the following differences:

Aristotle - Rhetoric and On Poetics (rather than Politics) - also binding appears unique (so far). The volumes of Rhetoric and On Poetics I have found on eBay have a different binding than mine.

Plutarch [volume] is entitled "Selected Lives' rather than "Twelve Illustrious Lives"

Racine - Six Tragedies - is closest to a volume I have that is entitled simply "Greek Tragedies" [not in Wiki list] and the volume has no reference in it to Jean Racine

Some of my volumes are in storage still, so there might be other differences. If anyone has an explanation, I would appreciate it. I did not think my collection was to have a full 100 volumes. Maybe this was a smaller version published for some time.

75.11.59.238 22:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple explination if they are not bound in full leather. You most likely owm the Oxford Library of the World's Great Books (quarter-bound, 1981-1985) which was also published by the Franklin Library simultaneously. The collection does not appear here as the Oxford collection shares some of the titles of the 100 Greatest Books of All Time collection; however, the Oxford does not contain 100 volumes as you mention (I believe it is around 60, but don't quote me). Moreover, the 100 Greatest Books Collection (1974-1982), next to the Signed 60 Collection (1977-1982), is one of the most beautiful, comprehensive, and valuable collections ever published, and thus it would be redundant to list them both here.

See:

http://www.leatherboundtreasure.com/franklin_library.html

or

http://www.keithwease.com/franklininfo.html

for additional information. Either way, it is still a beautiful, comprehensive, and valuable collection in itself.

Fair use rationale for Image:Franklin Library Cat.jpg
Image:Franklin Library Cat.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 08:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mile-long Lists?
Would it make any sense to extract the lists from this page into a separate article (or six)? -- Avocado 01:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FranklinLibrary.jpg
Image:FranklinLibrary.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FranklinLibrary2.jpg
Image:FranklinLibrary2.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FranklinLibrary5.JPG
Image:FranklinLibrary5.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Franklin Library series order of printing
Is there anyway to obtain information about the order of printing or release for the various Franklin Library series? 134.126.40.131 (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

History of the company
The history of the company/series is missing. What happened to the Franklin Library? How did it begin and why did it end in 2000? Slywy (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Trimming this article
This article needs serious trimming and rewriting. Though the company is defunct, this whole thing is one massive advertisement. Wikipedia is not a catalog for Franklin. Lady of  Shalott  03:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A bit dismayed by this 'enlightened' space, by the 'humanity' here ...
The information provided in the 'Franklin Library' Wikipedia article is accurate, verifiable. Something that shouldn't just be obliterated at the whim of another. I've spent much time and effort (as have others on other websites, from which history and information about Franklin Library and its publications has been gleaned). Compiling and editing the information about Franklin, its history, and the classic titles the company produced in its relatively brief duration has been time-intensive: not a simple or easy task. The resulting information lists are accurate -- and very similar to those collection lists that appear in the Wikipedia pages for 'Easton Press' (ironically, a company alive and well, one that has much to gain by their lists' inclusion -- far more so than does Franklin, an economically 'dead' one. So much for advertisement).

The feeling I get (and admittedly I'm very new to the whole Wikipedia contribution process) is that I've been very 'hard hit', in an abrupt, hammered, immature kind of way -- like I've been blind-sided by a kind of mean-spirited little mob (not necessarily by those who've made comments here, but rather 'editor' remarks on what can be said is left of my carefully compiled article). That's what's happened, and how I feel.

The information I provided is valuable to many people (I know from the many antiquarian and fine- book collecting forums, discussions, and seminars that I've participated in over the years) -- for those who want to know more about Franklin Library Press and its past: and there are many (and so little information before has been collected). Franklin book-collecting has been an ardent pastime for many individuals over the years. The links to other Wikipedia info pages were also useful (informed editors must surely know just how valuable these links are): it's very difficult to be 'redundant' with such a valuable 'hypertext' linking format when researcher-learners may be looking for something specific in an article and, therefore, then see that 'redundant' link for the first time (not having viewed what went before).

The lists I've provided (all now thoughtlessly deleted) are all verifiable with the previously provided source-references (not to mention an intimate experience with these classic books -- my own, as I personally own a great many of the titles listed, and that of many other experts, avid collectors, and booksellers who handle these brilliantly produced volumes on a daily basis as part of an historic passion for well-wrought books, and with whom I regularly correspond). The lists contain valuable information for different interests and people.

They now, sadly, don't exist for anyone who has been searching for that information, or who will have an occasion to inquire or search in the future for that information. It's inexplicable the flagrant attitude and whimsy with which others feel they can 'cut' another's valid research and work, without the slightest courtesy of consultation first.

I've never Wiki-posted before, nor did I understand what was happening when others began so blatantly to 'edit' the article I'd researched and carefully prepared for inclusion here. Suddenly, all of my work was gone; I'd not the slightest notion of what had occurred. I'd not the slightest idea that there possibly could be others in such an apparently 'civil' arena who feel that they can so flagrantly, so arrogantly destroy (strongly suggested by the tone of their comments), in thoughtless amusement, another's work. And this, before the most basic courtesies of consultation or reasoning were given; and to then, without sensitive thought, drop heavy-handed, insulting, and entirely non-challant comments in that destruction's wake! -- in which they (again, by the content and tone their comments) gleefully seemed to take a juvenile satisfaction and derision.

Theirs was a wholesale 'cutting' away of entirely truthful, valid passages of what Franklin, in fact, was able (amazingly, in so short a period) to accomplish -- entirely accurate listings of Franklin's book collections over the years -- and in the very same kind of format that other, and very similar, types of collections appear on the "Easton Press" Wikipedia pages.

The comments made thus far in what I'd interpreted to be an 'enlightened' editing forum have not been in the least courteous or welcoming; on the contrary, they've been short, curt, arrogant, and rude. It's as if, for the originators of those comments, who wholesale-destroyed with their 'edits' (flagrant cuts) to just one contribution (of who knows how many other valid contributions to this info-base), to this hub of 'gathering knowledge'. It's as if it were, to them, all some kind of warped 'contest' for fame and glory -- a pathetic 'challenge' for a precious few of the power-hungry of the world (for little people who must get little other attention), to discover who can out-trump, -destroy, -offend and -insult the well-meaning and unwary.

By my experience so far, it's a sad place to contribute to one's world, or to one's fellowmen -- or to at least make the good-faith attempt. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have explained every single edit I made in an edit summary, and I did not delete anything "thoughlessly" (as a matter of fact, that link to that website is still there). I am sorry you feel the way you feel, but my trimming is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, many of which are linked from the welcome template on your user page. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are over 3.8 million articles on Wikipedia, catching all mistakes, errors, articles that sounds like advertisements, etc., etc. is difficult if not downright impossible when dealing with such a sheer volume of content. Thanks to Chauvelin2000 for pointing out some issues with Easton Press content (I assume Easton Press and List of collections from Easton Press?)  Keeping in mind Other stuff exists, I edited the Easton Press article and the List article now has an appropriate maintenance template.
 * A couple of things...
 * Content on Wikipedia is hardly ever truly deleted, it still exists within the article's history. All one has to do is click on the "View history" tab and look there.  If content has been removed from the page, you can look at a previous version where that content still exists.
 * Wikipedia is run by consensus and as a collaborative effort...that means anyone can edit and that everyone has an opinion. If you disagree with another editor's actions and wish to discuss how to improve an article, that is what talkpages are for.  Discuss, gather consensus, move forward.  Is the process perfect?  No.  Do editors sometimes have strong and differing opinions about articles' content, do discussions sometimes get messy?  Yes, just take a look at Thomas Jefferson or Jayne Mansfield or Talk:United States Constitution or Assassination of Abraham Lincoln or any other subject you think might possibly not have a neutral point of view.  The thing is, no one really owns Wikipedia, it belongs to all of us, all us editors and we have to try to get along, as maddening as that might be at times, if we are all going to be able to create and improve  the Wikipedia encyclopedia.
 * Finally, I know that you were upset when you posted your comments above, but in the future when you disagree with another editor's actions, it would be best to refer to the edits only and not to characterize other editors and their actions in pejorative terms.
 * --Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Whole article looks like advertising
There's 1 reference here only, and that links to a commercial non-reliable source. Eliminate the puffery and the unsupported material and everything needs to go. Some of it might go into the Franklin Mint article, but that article has many of the same problems.

I'd also like to make sure that everybody understands the WP:COI guideline, as well as the prohibition of advocacy by WP:NPOV and the prohibition on advertising by WP:NOT. There are also possible legal consequences that should be checked out (I'm not a lawyer, and I'm definitely not making a legal threat here), including FTC rules on astroturfing, and European Union fair trade rules. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)