This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harlequin Enterprises article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heads up
editAccording to this non-reliable source Harlequin has started a vanity press division and because of this its status as a recognized publisher in the Romance Writers of America has been revoked. No reliable sources yet but once they turn up something about this should probably be added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've found more sources, including official statements (or copies of official statements) from three different major writing associations as well as the new imprint's own web site. I think that's enough to add it now. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up by mainstream news outlets yet. This is a pretty big deal. Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good find on the Publishers Weekly source, by the way. I think the SFWA RWA and MWA primary sources, despite being self-published, were ok to use because of the significance of those associations in their fields, but it's always better to use reliable secondary sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, and I wouldn't have removed your text/sources unless there was an alternative. I found articles on this in French and German as well... I suspect there will be more in English soon. That was a great catch you made, finding this so soon after it started to explode. Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good find on the Publishers Weekly source, by the way. I think the SFWA RWA and MWA primary sources, despite being self-published, were ok to use because of the significance of those associations in their fields, but it's always better to use reliable secondary sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up by mainstream news outlets yet. This is a pretty big deal. Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Lawsuit
edithttp://www.harlequinlawsuit.com/ Someone may wish to add something about the lawsuit - allegedly, Harlequin is selling eBook rights its own subsidiary at a ridiculous discount, so authors get a share of what Harlequin receives (12 cents per ebook) while the Harlequin fully-owned subsidiary pockets the bulk of the profit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.78.180 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- That web site is not a reliable source on this issue, but I think Quill & Quire may be [1]. (Found via a much briefer subscription-only article in the Winnipeg Free Press, [2]). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
"In 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed" - Ten years later and no more information. What happened to the lawsuit? Kdammers (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harlequin Enterprises. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120822135417/http://www.quillandquire.com:80/blog/index.php/2012/07/19/harlequin-faces-lawsuit-for-unpaid-digital-royalties to http://www.quillandquire.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/19/harlequin-faces-lawsuit-for-unpaid-digital-royalties/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Rogue Angel TV or movie Series
editI just started reading this series and I would honestly love to see it bright to life either tv series or movie anyone else agree 2604:2D80:E884:9300:A80F:8725:1FC8:99E5 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)