This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Zhi Gang Sha#Works]] The anchor (#Works) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I can't find any evidence for the veracity of the claim that Werther eau de cologne was a spin off of Goethe's novel. Is there any referenceable authority? - 217.207.125.60 11:47, 18 October 2005

Yeah, that stuff is amusing, but is it "true"? It should have a source. Personally, I don't have the resources at hand for that...but I'll keep it in mind... --Tsavage 20:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this several places. On the net, you'll find a mention of it here: [[1]] in an article by professor Gerhart Hoffmeister. I'm sure you'll find more if you google. I find the fact that the spin off industry is an older phenomenon interesting, but it hardly merits a footnote? Asav 12:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a paragraph with a historical perspective on the term. While I have not removed any text, I felt the article in its previous form was far too US-centered and somewhat shallow. Asav

Whatever! ;) I stuck it in its own section. It needs lots of citation (not particularly for ME, but, um, for the Rules). --Tsavage 21:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the move to wiktionary notice. Perhaps this is a stub, but a dictionary definition would simply be: bestseller - a popular book. "Bestseller" is a pretty big part of the modern cultural landscape, and there's more to it than a simple def. I'll add a couple of lines to perhaps head it more in the stub direction... Tsavage 02:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• So you think that just because you like this article, Wiktionary doesn't deserve to have a definition of "bestseller"? Note that "bestseller" is currently on the list of requested articles at Wiktionary. Transwiki does not mean deletion, so I have no idea what your objection is, I'm putting the tag back.--Dmcdevit 03:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm totally unclear on what "move to Wiktionary" means, then, if it doesn't mean, "move to the dictionary because it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, it's not an encyclopedia topic, it's simply a WORD"... Is there some space where articles exist in both Wikipedia and Wiktionary? Can a word be defined in Wiktionary, and also exist as an article in Wikipedia? Tsavage 06:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • In a word, yes. There is a common misconceptionn that articles will be deleted after transwiki. What happens is, after the content and history of this page is move to a transitional page in wiktionary awaiting format, Template:Transwikied to Wiktionary, will appear on this talk page. This puts it on the listing of articles that have been transwikied and are candidates for vfd or speedy deletion. All that needs to be done is remove that tag if the article, like this one, is encyclopedic. Think of it this way, every word should be defined in Wiktionary, therefore some Wikipedia names now have content that is needed in Wiktionary.--Dmcdevit 16:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I see what you are d oing now. A far better approach than simply tagging all of the encyclopaedia topics, that happen to be words, with ((move to Wiktionary)) is instead to directly create the corresponding Wiktionary article, with a ((wikipedia)) (and, if there are 3 or fewer headings, a __TOC__) tag at the top, optionally marking it as a ((stub)). See Wiktionary:Multiplexor for an example of how the linking works. It's far less hassle than sending long encyclopaedia articles through the transwiki system, the vast bulks of which are useless to Wiktionary. A few Wiktionarians are, gradually, as and when, doing exactly this, notice. Alternatively, you can create a page on Wiktionary with redlinks for all of the words that Wiktionary does not yet have that occur as article titles in Wikipedia. There's already a page listing the top 500 words in Wikipedia that Wiktionary does not yet have. Uncle G 18:54, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
        • Sory for the work I created for you. It probably ssems like I was systematically marking all these pages for transwiki for no reason, but really it was only a few minutes of tagging on my part. Sorry about the confusion.--Dmcdevit 19:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • No problem. And, re Wiktionary/transwiki, I see! Um, well, not precisely, but eventually I'll read through that stuff and sort it out. In any case, I suppose the bestseller article is better for it! Tsavage 19:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many articles about authors or their books will claim that a particular book is a "bestseller". Aside from the obvious NY Times and Publisher's Weekly lists, what standards should we use internally to judge such claims? -Willmcw 21:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

The quote referenced in footnote #6 links to the incorrect title at Movies Unlimited. The correct link is http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/product.asp?sku=D29673

I am currently writing an essay for my school called: Bestsellers - artistic or entertaining literature. Can someone point me to sites that would be helpful? This article is a great resource btw. Misha 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the middle of the 19th century, a situation akin to modern publication had emerged, where most bestsellers were written for a popular taste and are now almost entirely forgotten, with odd exceptions such as East Lynne (remembered only for the line "Gone, gone, and never called me mother!")...

While it's true that "East Lynne" is famous for this line, the line never actually appears in the novel, but came from later stage versions. In this regard, it's like "Elementary, my dear Watson" or "Beam me up, Scotty" - famous, but actually a misapprehension. What's the best way of editing the above paragraph to make that clear without making the whole thing too lumbering?89.125.85.161 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm pretty sure "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," would of probably been popular even without the movie. It does run under the same lines as a book turned into a movie say like "Jaws," or "The Godfather." Besides "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," recieved the lowest grade of any of the Harry Potter series. Couldn't you choose another one of the Harry Potter films like "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," or something? Thank you.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is there a standard for bestseller or is it subjective?

Odd. My speller (Safari, Apple Mac) doesn't like the spelling "bestseller", and Google search seems to follow suit; it's asking if I meant "best seller". Clearly the article is treating its own single instance of "best seller" as an etymological archaism.

I've never typed the word before, but "bestseller" seems to be what my fingers naturally wanted to 'say'. I also want to pronounce it "besseller", geminate ss, not "best-seller" JohndanR (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]