Ghyll talk:Folktown Records

"this would obviously lead to the immediate loss of advertising revenue, so it cannot be done" - Heh! Funniest paragraph yet. --Sean B. Palmer 05:14, 16 Oct 2004 (EDT) (Blammo!)

Thank you! (The "Blammo!" above is Sean's doing, not mine, BTW.) What's even funnier is that this is equally true of Real World newspapers. --John Cowan 02:16, 17 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Funnily, I just heard a story about Real World newspapers the other day. A guy was trying to lessen his reading intake, and thus unsubscribed from the daily delivery. They've been calling him back for the past month, first offering him the whole week for just the cost of the Sunday issue (2.50US), and then again for HALF the cost of the Sunday issue. As you've said, they solely wanted to keep him as a subscriber for their own statistical integrity with their advertisers. --Morbus Iff 20:44, 18 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Not surprising. Papers have circulation wars like other businesses have price-cutting wars: mutually destructive, but an attempt to be the last man standing. The term "war" is no metaphor here. --John Cowan 13:06, 19 Oct 2004 (EDT)

"Waffle-Iron Building" is a term devised by me to describe 4 New York Plaza in lower Manhattan, parodying the standard term Flatiron Building, 175 5th Ave. The bit with "the Folktown Records" vs. "The Folktown Records" alludes to the insistence of the New York Times on calling itself The New York Times, as in "a reporter for The New York Times". --John Cowan 11:25, 17 Feb 2005 (EST)

So, reading this entry and luminous manuscript I noticed a discrepency. Folktown Records claims to be printed on acid-free high-quality darseed-pulp stock with no mention of lumes, but luminous manuscript claims that The Folktown Records are printed on lumes, excepting the 600th issue which was printed on "cacolume" to mass complaints. Is this something that should be edited? And/or is this comment one that could/should be made on the article itself by my scholar? --Lisa B. Underhalh 18:26, 21 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Hrm. I could go three ways on this one. I guess it'd be possible to introduce a new fact saying the newspaper has used BOTH the darseed paper and lumes, and have switched at certain times over the course of their publishing history. This would "explain it away", but I'm not sure it's "right" (I can't recall too many real world publications that have switched from regular, to glossy, to newsprint, for example). Another alternative is to edit the luminous manuscript entry, which would require that entire paragraph to be rewritten - that may be too "much" for such a (relatively small) non-breakage inconsistency like this. The "let someone else fix it" solution would be to just note your discontent in-game as a comment, and hope a future entry correct it (we've done that in a few other places). If I get any further time today, and since luminous manuscript is my entry, I'll look at reworking the paragraph. --Morbus Iff 08:27, 22 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I'd like for a mad edit to go ahead and edit this entry to note that in addition to darseed pulp, this paper is lume, just as most/all of Ghyll's paper is, and include a link to luminous manuscript as a result. --Lisa B. Underhalh 13:26, 25 Apr 2005 (EST)

I'd support an edit that said something along these lines, as long as it is clear that a) there is only one version of the paper, b) that it is primarily made from darseed pulp (because it is cheaper to produce, print on, whatever), and c) contains a bit of luminescence, as per a lume. This is toeing the line between "adding a new fact in during a mad edit", but I'm fine with it because it solves an inconsistency problem undiscovered until now. --Morbus Iff 13:43, 25 Apr 2005 (EDT)