Talk:The Franklin Mint

What about coins?

Maybe I'm wrong here, but didn't some small countries contract with the Franklin Mint for their circulating coins? A2Kafir 21:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Franklin Mint struck coins for some 20 different nations. Some of these coins were used for actual circulation while other were for collectors. After about 1982, all of Franklin Mint's coins of the realm were minted strictly for collectors. The last of such sets were struck for the British Virgin Islands in 2001. These were "World's Great Sailing Ships," "Great Art Masterpieces," & "The Legendary Pirates."

Nobody wanted these coins, and most sets had minteges of less than a thousand. I got a Belize quarter with a mintage of eight hundred something for a price of five bucks. Ericl 18:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Advertising article

Little is said of the questionable value of FM 'collectibles'. Much is said of the products.

Yet another Wikipedia advert. But, hey, this is the good ol' US of A, where everything is for sale and advertising is the highest form of art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.164.161 (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Advertisements SCREAM at you

I think the illegitimacy of this article is belied by the use of the American language, and not English. For examplye "from" after "comprised". An object is "comprised of", never "comprised from." To the best of my knowledge, "from" cannot logically follow "comprised" in the English language, any more than "of" can follow "off" (it can't). "Of" can follow "off" only in American; never in English.

We desperately need an English-language based Wikipedia for English speakers.

PS: Jewellery is spelt JEWELLERY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.207.31 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Uhm, the policy is that U.S.-related articles use US spellings, and UK-based articles use UK spellings. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the original poster's comment. While "off of" may be acceptable in informal spoken English here in the US, it's not good style in writing. I think most high school and college English instructors would tend to agree. I also disagree with his chauvinsim--"an English-language based Wikipedia for English speakers". We speak English, too. Since we're critiquing one another, he should have been more precise, and call for a British English Wikipedia, for speakers of British English.

It would be more accurate to claim that 'we' (US-ian, therefore no need to identify whom 'we' are, since US-ian is the world's default nationality, of course) speak a mangled, illiterate version of English. As for 'British English', that is merely a US-ian term coined to try to justify the ungrammatical, approximation to English spoken by many (but not all) US-ians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:522:D710:1:1:11BA:BB3C (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course, that's a tempest in a tea pot.

Best regards TheBaron0530 (talk) 13:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)theBaron0350

POV

The article has some serious POV problems - for example: For five decades The Franklin Mint has been recognized as the premier source for heirloom quality works of art and collectibles. Their product line is comprised from a wide repertoire of art genres and artists; many pieces hand-crafted by the leading artisans in their fields, and many offered in strict worldwide Limited Edition. Much of their distinct and original art has been created to commemorate governments, museums and the most prestigious organizations on six continents. It began with manufacturing and marketing privately-minted gold and silver commemorative rounds and medallions, but quickly branched out into other collectibles. In the 1960s the price of silver rose, causing all silver coins to be removed from circulation. Clearly this needs a serious rewrite.Autarch (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Article needs reliable sources

I've noticed some additions and reversions. The additions seemed to say something, but they and the article as a whole need some reliable sources. See WP:RS. There's a history of advertising in the article, so we need to be especially careful. Perhaps we should just strip it down to the sourced part - conflict with Princess Diana's estate. Smallbones (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

POV, peacock language, not enough references

Some examples of WP:PEACOCK, MOS:OPED and WP:POV:

• Through the 1990s, Franklin Mint's diecast line improved in detail and quality. Clever features were added - for example, luggage to go in trunks or a variety of pistols and rifles for a reproduction of Bonnie & Clyde's Ford 'gangster' car. Areas of automobilia previously untouched were also seen in new offerings like the groundbreaking 1951 GM Le Sabre concept car (a name not then associated with Buick).
• In this time period, certain models exhibited wonderful accuracy, like the late 1950s Nash Metropolitan with accurate decals rendering the red "N" on the hubcaps, and its engine block painted an authentic English Austin green. The Metropolitan was also rather humorously offered in police livery!
• By contrast, Danbury Mint has continued to forge ahead with some of the finest diecast offerings around. Danbury Mint developed a more solid and consistent business and marketing plan which helped that company's strength even during market downturns.
• There are always collectors looking for complete perfect condition Franklin Mint sets of medals, coins, and ingots. The quality of these pieces is very good. These items always bid actively when appearing showing up on Ebay.

Autarch (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

So let's clean it up - strip to the bare bones if necessary. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The article may need to be cleaned up but it needs to be done by someone who knows the history of Franklin Mint. People often assume places like this were all the same and the product has no value. While FM made items of all prices ranges..some were outstanding...others not so much. If you really know the product and know how to sell it on the secondary market and who to sell to you can sell some of the in demand items for value. It also needs to be said that collecting should be about purchasing a well made item thats fun to own. Not investment. You can't judge collectibility of an item by grandson taking the stuff to a dealer and getting a rock bottom liquidating price. Some items are valuable because there is cult following for certain items..and many were not made. However just calling it a collectible does not make it something that others will pay a premium for. But is cynicism that blurrs all this together than needs to be left out of the article. In regards to metal values...if FM sold a 1.5 ounce silver ingot for $19.95 in 1975...that same piece today would be worth almost $50 in silver alone.

If you study Franklin Mint you will see that they built design staff and factories using some of the best people in the business (in the 1970's) They were the worlds largest private mint and their quality is still un matched by most mints today. But most people who would edit this probably do not know that FM actually ran a mint a developed many production patents. They even ran their own porcelain factory in the USA.

The Princess Diana thing is rather pointless as it targets FM and not every other business that produced Diana items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.124.200 (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Vehicle Details

I added some details regarding vehicles back in, simply because they are true, as seen from observation - sometimes the truth is not going to be found in a publication - though we will keep looking for good ones to cite. Mentioning pluses as well as faults of a product is important. Mentioning variety of different types of vehicles offered is also important. It seems some people get upset when detail of any kind is explained. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It all needs to have reliable sources, or must be removed according to our rules. Please read WP:V and certainly WP:COI. Do you notice any major theme in all the comments on this page? I'd say that it is all about somebody trying to sell something. Let's please not do that. I'll remove everything that's not strictly within the rules, and then we might try to build it up with sourced material and a neutral point of view. Any complaints can go to WP:COIN. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

To remove everything regarding the vehicles was not right. The information stated positive and negative aspects of the vehicles. People interested in the vehicles, coins, etc. want to know what they were like. How do you do that perfectly neutrally? Some products were good and some not so good, and that WAS stated. Why remove the pictures too? They tell us something about the product. If a product does do something well or is superior, can't that be stated? The pictures portrayed those details on the Nash Metropolitan - they show how the product is good or bad, so how are we better off by not having them? The basic information was moving in the right direction; removing it was rash. The article was better with it than without it. Now we have a ransacked watered-down entry. Does it need more sourced information - yes. Let's work toward that. Starting from scratch was not the correct response by the Wikipolice. And the Wikipolice did not give enough time for anyone to work on the article before deboning it.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

All statements that might be questioned need to have sources cited. These statements HAVE BEEN questioned since May 2010, so it's high time the ads get taken out. I'm sorry that you misunderstood that Wikipedia is a place to put ads, but it simply isn't. We have to enforce some standards. If you do have complaints, do go to WP:COIN, but I'm sure they'll tell you the same things. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Most "reliable sources" are just people's opinions that happen to have been published somewhere. You did not address the fact that negative and positive things were said about Franklin Mint products, thus it did not read that much like an ad. You interpreted some accurate observations from photographs as an ad? You did not address why the photos were taken out. Any information I added has just been in the last few months, not since 2010. I maintain that the article was much improved and moving in the right direction. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the new material added seems commercially oriented. Not really the stuff usually covered in catalogues which may not be reliable sources in any case. Please include better sources in the inline format. We can build this up, but not by just throwing in things willy-nilly, especially if they look commercial. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I have a couple of new sources that you didn't even give me a chance to put in. I have some new material that critiques as well as explains, but as soon as I start writing, Smallbones takes it out. Can you give me some idea of how to go about talking about different offerings without appearing too "commercially oriented"? You have to mentioned types of vehicles offered and their scales and how they seemed successful or not.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I've put in a new section on vehicles and tried to balance it with more detail - trying to express positives as well as published critiques. My mentioning of different types of vehicles is meant not as a commercial, rather as an indication of the different types of vehicles offered by the mint. Several new sources were added and put into parenthetical referencing which Wikipedia does support. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you please read WP:COI? Then may I ask if you have a conflict of interest here? Several people have noted the advertising aspect of this article (see above) and asked for it to be cleaned up. But you've just put back material that has been questioned, with very few sources cited and they are of questionable reliability. You are the only person who wants this material in here, it is of questionable relevance to the history of Franklin Mint as a whole, and looks like somebody is trying to sell something. I'll contact WP:COIN. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to treat this more like a third opinion request than a COIN report. It doesn't look to me like Cstevencampbell has a COI, only that he's someone who is well versed in the topic area of model vehicles. It does somewhat unbalance the article to focus on vehicles so much, but this sort of undue weight is rarely a reason to remove material when it's a short article like this, it merely means the rest of the article is underdeveloped. I don't really get a commercial/promotional vibe from his edits. Parenthetical citations are allowed, but the citation style for an article should be kept consistent, so they really should be converted to footnotes if the article started out with footnotes. Again, this isn't a good reason to revert the material either, it should be fixed. As for whether it's original research, I have not viewed the sources so I can't easily judge that, but from a quick glance, it doesn't seem to be. We should welcome expert contributions in general, and we can forgive them exceeding what is in the immediately cited sources a little bit, if what they are saying is not controversial or clearly synthesis. Gigs (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The material I have placed is balanced and not overly commercial. Smallbones seems to think that just discussing model offerings is "trying to sell a product". It seems that Smallbones prefers very basic articles that only generally review the subject. Gigs hit the nail on the head. I write generally on toy and collector cars. I reviewed several positive as well as negative aspects of Franklin Mint vehicles. Yes the article is somewhat unbalanced. Yes, I aim at improving the sources. I will attempt a cleanup of the references, a couple of which no longer work anyway. There was other material in the article previously on coins and plates that has been removed, but I don't know much about Franklin plates or coins.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

And there was only ONE other person who commented on my material above anyway (Autarch). None of the other comments treated the vehicles section.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

One other comment. Diecast vehicles were not a 'sideline' in the company of Franklin Mint. They were a major product. Is it that no one wants this material in here (only Autarch commented on it) or that few know enough to put such detail in here?--Cstevencampbell (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Cstevencampbell was found not guilty of the charge of conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Franklin Mint. Smallbones has also asked for clarification of reliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#sources at Franklin Mint but little has come back from that yet.  Stepho  talk  12:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Original research for collector value

This is seriously into original research territory - which is strictly forbidden. We are speculating on why people bought the pieces (hoping to make money when the price when up, cultish buying or simple desire for the piece). We are also speculating about why the values went up (short runs) or down (too many hoarders). This needs references. Even if this is all true and well referenced, it has to be something specifically about Franklin Mint, otherwise it belongs on a general collecting page and only a minor mention here - or no mention at all.  Stepho  talk  11:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

In line citations

I just wanted to note here that, as an academic researcher in my day job, I have a strong aversion to in-line numbered citations. Most professional journals these days use parenthetical referencing,which Wikipedia supports (See: Wikipedia:Citing sources). Furthermore, in Wikipedia, in-line citations are difficult to set up and a nightmare to alter. They also imply that the reader has no need to really look at the references (they are passed over - what are those little numbers, there?) So, in my opinion they discourage a true curiosity toward finding out other material about the subject.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Our general practice is to continue the style that the article started with. Since it appears this started with footnotes, you'll have to get consensus to change it over to parenthetical citations. Gigs (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the parenthetical style used in academia but the footnote style seemed to be the preferred style on WP (which I've also seen in plenty of scholarly books and journals). Looks like I changed the style when I shouldn't have. Should I change it back?  Stepho  talk  23:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that concerned about it. If I add more than three or four more references, I may think about changing it back. Consistency is better than a mixed bag of references. I never put in-line references into my Wikipedia articles, though. Maybe I'm dumb, but I can't figure it out - and don't even try. It's easier and more straightforward to add in parenthetical citations and then references below. And then its frustrating when editing to look at the bottom and see the automated 'reflist'. It's maddening. I want to see them all laid out there when I'm editing, as well as when I'm reading the article. I appreciate everybody's contributions, though.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this article and the die cast section

Please read the comments above, particularly in the sections: Advertising article; Advertisements SCREAM at you; POV; Article needs reliable sources; POV, peacock language, not enough references; and Original research for collector value. Rather than just complain about the obvious advertising that was going on here, I have attempted to clean it up. I hope everybody will acknowledge that that is something that can be done in good faith.

The die cast section appears to have all the same problems as the other sections had. It promotes the collection of die cast models. Folks have said that there are criticisms as well as promotion, but that is a common promotion technique in certain markets. Perhaps this section is just fancruft, but it still has many of the same problems as the ads did. In particular - there are few if any reliable sources. If you are trying to use Flickr as a reliable source, there is clearly a problem. Perhaps one or two of the sources MIGHT be considered reliable here, but it is hard to tell simply because they are impossible to get ahold of. They are the type of book you can buy in a hobby shop, but you'll never find them in a library. So please get rid of the unreliable sources and the material they supposedly support.

Another problem is original research - there are statements here that are clearly opinions of they type that these craft shop books seldom give. If an opinion is given in one of these books please put it in as a quote. Otherwise leave out the opinions.

Another problem is weight. This is an article on a defunct company that made multiple thousands of "products." The company is barely notable in itself, and then most likely for selling useless junk disguised as "collectibles". It then essentially went out of business, because it was selling useless junk. Now 5 or 10 of the "products" are pulled out and considered in ultimate detail. Certainly a problem with weight. Others might call it trivia.

If you really want to put this material in Wikipedia, you might try to create an article on Die cast automobile models, but unless you have better sources than you're putting here, the article will likely be deleted. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Validity of the Franklin Mint article

I don't understand your view against the promotion of some general product. Doesn't the article on Hot Wheels generally promote the collection of Hot Wheels? Doesn't the Wikipedia article on Marvel Comics generally promote the idea of having comics or action figures? Don't articles on maps promote having and using maps? Smallbones' argument is based on the fallacy that some things are valuable while other things are not. Who is to decide what is valuable for an all-inclusive encyclopedia?

About weight. Yes, we are weighting the presentation of the vehicles offered, but how does one approach the multiple offerings of a company, defunct or not? By giving examples. We cannot give all the examples - that would fill up pages and pages. So we pick a few notable ones to give the flavor of the offerings. And the argument that a defunct company is not worth mentioning is...incredible. What about Marx Toys? What about Matchbox? What about Tinkertoys? They are all defunct...so by your argument, none of them are worth mentioning anymore because most of what they produced has gone to rot? Have you noticed there are not many Ford Model Ts around. OH...we better delete the article on the Model T (also it promotes Ford, so that's not permissible).

Yes, it seems there are not many university publishers putting out books on diecast vehicles and the field is a narrow one. But so is stamp collecting or baseball cards. So we go to the experts to find information. And that will be from rather obscure sources. But they are as reliable as St. Martin's Press or Knopf or whoever you hold up as a reliable source.

Don't assume there are no other articles in Wikipedia on diecast vehicles, there are multitudes of them. And on many companies less notable than Franklin Mint - shall we weed them all out? Well you might not be interested, but once the ax comes out, we might as well begin burning books too. Fahrenheit 451. Ooops! Sorry. I just promoted somebody's book.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTPROMOTION - your message above is completely contradictory to this policy. See in particular

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

....

Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

See, I'm sure you see by now, you just can't do what you're trying to do here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Continued discussion on validity of Franklin Mint

I think we keep missing each others points. I think you're trying to say that you shouldn't use Wikipedia to sell products. I think what I'm trying to say is companies and products large and small are important parts of our lives and need Wikipedia entries. One third party has already given an opinion that what I'm doing is not conflict of interest because I'm trying to convey information about the product, and doing so in a neutral manner, as an expert.

Franklin Mint produced more than 600 issues of 1,000 to 3,000 pieces each. That's at least 600,000 pieces for just vehicles. That is not a "garage" or or local company by any means. Products were outsourced to China - and then shipped back to the U.S. in large numbers, but you knew that. None of the companies I report on fall into the "garage" or local column.

Again, my point was all encyclopedia entries are going to promote product somehow. The way you stated it, just talking about Franklin Mint's product is promoting its sale. Well then should we delete entries for Hot Wheels or Ford Motor Company or Whirlpool because eventually we are going to talk about their product and thus somehow promote it? You never addressed that question. To talk about a company or its products is not an endorsement. Hey, I don't even like Franklin Mint products that much, but that doesn't stop me from being interested in it.

So I'm sure you see by now that I'm not doing what you think I'm doing--Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's step back and see what we've been accused of so far:

• Autarch accused the article of WP:PEACOCK, MOS:OPED and WP:POV. Smallbones wanted to 'strip to the bare bones if necessary'. The gushier parts of the article were cleaned up.
• Smallbones accused Cstevencampbell of Conflict of interest. The administrators said there wasn't any COI.
• Smallbones accused the article of unreliable sources, to which the administrators have not responded yet.
• Smallbones warned Cstevencampbell of WP:NOTPROMOTION and advertising. I'm not quite sure what was supposedly being promoted or advertised.
• Smallbones warns us of non-notability. I'm not sure why he accused us of this because Franklin Mint has been a big player in the collectable diecast world for such a long time. See how many Franklin Mint models are on Ebay for an indication of how well known they are.

This smacks very much of shotgun tactics. Instead of a clean kill with one good bullet we're getting sprayed with buckshot in the hope that eventually something will hit a tender spot.  Stepho  talk  14:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This section has to follow Wikipedia's rules. If you could include some reliable sources, there would be no question of notability (or WP:WEIGHT in this context). If the opinions were documented then there would be no question of POV or promotion. Sources cannot be e.g. from Flickr, they have to be WP:RS. I've removed the unreferenced material. I'll remove the poorly referenced materail later - it would be better if you cleaned it up yourself. Why not just read our rules, and then rewrite this to about 5 lines that can actually be supported with references? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Compared to other experiences on Wikipedia, Smallbones' hounding is improper and against the idea of the enjoyment of the acquisition of all types of knowledge. Indeed it approaches persecution. If all articles on Wikipedia are written to Smallbones' narrow specifications and requirements it would make for quite a boring and unenlightened read, lacking in spirit or creativity. Nevertheless, I submit. The flavor of the article is probably better cut to the smallbones, oops, I meant barebones anyway.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Status of Franklin Mint Sources

Smallbones questioned the unreliability of decent sources for Franklin Mint diecast. Then Smallbones puts in a link to a letter published to an on-line newspaper from someone who was upset at Franklin Mint's coins? How is this a reliable source? It might be OK if the letter was balanced by someone whose experience with the mint was positive. As it was, however, the source was an opinion and unreliable according to Smallbones own criteria.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

My criteria are just those of WP:RS. The Herald-News is just the suburban version of the Chicago Sun-Times, so is a reliable newspaper and it was published in the newspaper, not just on-line. It was a letter to a regular columnist, a financial advisor, and it was answered by the columnist. I was just parking the reference until I had a time to write it up and include it in the article, but I can park it here. If you have any argument with the reliability of the source, please take it up at WP:RSN. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Coin purchases don’t live up to claims, Malcolm Berko, The Herald-News, May 30, 2012.
  • • Also Top 5 Worst Coin Investments, checking on source reliability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Franklin Mint Sold, Tuesday, October 17, 2006 AP
  • Franklin Mint
  • Roll Global LLC
  • [1] Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Franklin Mint revives
  • Minting Memories: Franklin Mint collectibles find value on secondary market
  • http://www.josephsegel.info/
  • Are Franklin Mint Coins Worth Collecting?

It's not like there is a lack of info on the company and the value of its items. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the Berko's claims. I have a theory that anything that is advertised as collectable is destined to bought up in large numbers by the gullible (which is why companies do it) and then the lack of rarity makes the value fall. That's just my theory, so it doesn't count for much. Letters to newspapers are usually not reliable sources (usually the local crackpot) but the columnist's pointed reply would probably have passed through a lawyer (newspapers don't want to be sued) and the columnist (Berko) seems to know the background of the collecting hobby and FM in particular. However, I have a couple of FM models myself (1967 Petty Plymouth Belvedere and RR Silver Ghost) which I am quite happy with as mid-range models. So I agree with Berko that collecting FM items is not a good retirement fund but disagree with him on the quality of some of the items. If the Berko reference remains I'd like to see it made inline somewhere. I'm not worried if it's parenthetical or a numbered note as long as all references are done consistently.  Stepho  talk  13:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think these sources should be applied to a nice paragraph within the article itself - they seem to provide a good background for an argument re: the coins. I agree with Stepho-wrs, though that the diecast collector hobby was a world apart from coins or plates. Those who are into the cars were not into the other areas of the company, and, for the most part were satisfied with their products.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The misleading nature of some Franklin Mint "collectible" issues should probably be addressed, since it's something that had drawn wide criticism and coverage. Gigs (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The Franklin Library article is a stub about a division within a division (Franklin Press) of The Franklin Mint. Lasting only from 1973-2000 and producing no original books but simply reprints, this defunct division more properly belongs in context here. Given it was simply a reprint house and had no history of breaking new authors or pioneering new genres, etc., it seems as if not enough could be said about it to justify article of any length, and if it's just a stub, it should go here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to merge.  Stepho  talk  15:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Wensleydale54 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Wensleydale54

Though limited, input has been unanimous and editors had eight months to participate. Merging. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"The previous owners have a license to complete some programming."

What the flying blue f*ck is that sencentnce supposed to mean?

It is 100% without meaning. But, this in't exactly rare given the quality an editorial competence of Wikipedua, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.107.88 (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to start editing to improve it.  Stepho  talk  23:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Franklin Mint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080518091130/http://www.bond.org.uk:80/funding/guide/diana.htm to http://www.bond.org.uk/funding/guide/diana.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)