Talk:Diamond Comic Distributors

Comics Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Claypool Comics

There should be something about Diamond shutting down Claypool Comics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.233.92 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there should/could be something in this article about Diamond's treatment of small press companies in general. The "open door" policy mentioned in the article has recently changed, for example, with their recent refusal to carry comics that don't have bar codes.--MythicFox 11:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to the tumultuous story of how they gained their monopoly on distribution in the 1990's. It's kind of interesting, and is briefly mentioned on Marvel Comics. A lot of small press publishers were hurt by that, along with all of the other smaller distribution companies.69.95.235.140 (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sub companies

Several of the companies, perhaps all, listed as divisions of Diamond are in fact separate companies owned by Geppi, not by Diamond. 66.31.78.14 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wth linking

Why the heck is previews linked to this page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.203.34 (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previews is the name of an important comic book industry catalog published by Diamond Comic Distributors. Apparently, no other article on Wikipedia grabbed the namespace first. If we need to disambiguate, we can certainly do so, but for now I see no reason to change. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]