Talk:Western Publishing
From Muppet Wiki
Owner(s)?
I'm confused by the first paragraph. It says: "Western Publishing was a large publishing company based in Racine, Wisconsin, with editorial offices in both New York and Los Angeles. The company no longer exists. Mattel bought Western in 1982, then sold it off in 1984. Under new ownership, the company was renamed Golden Books Family Entertainment and focused on children's books. Golden Books Family Entertainment was bought out by Random House in 2001."
Does anybody know a little more detail about what happened between 1984 and 2001? The reason I'm asking is because the 1990 Golden tapes say "Western Publishing Company, Inc., Racine, Wisconsin, 53404." So either Mattel kept the name and the same address after they bought them, or they didn't buy them until after 1990. I'm trying to find more material about that period and when they changed to Golden Books Family Entertainment (I think there are some used VHS's out there that will have that name on the boxes), but I wanted to see if any of our book collectors might know. Thanks! -- Ken (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Gallery
I'm thinking about taking out the pictures on the side and instead adding a number of galleries throughout the article, creating a visual catalog of the LGB titles. It would be split up, according to the sections that are currently in the article. So there would be a selection of 1970s LGBs under that text, then the Muppet/Muppet Babies/Big Big books under that paragraph, the Whitman Tell-a-Tale books under that section, etc.
Now that we have all these book covers, I think it would be nice to give people that visual information along with the text. But I don't want to do all that work if people aren't going to like it. So what do you think? -- Danny (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- While it would be nice to have (more of) the covers near the appropriate text rather than all together on the side, I generally don't like the way text interspersed with galleries looks, and I think it really breaks up the flow of the page. So I would vote against the idea, but not very strongly. -- Wendy (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)