Talk:The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
Anyone interested in the lists can access them via the edit history.
Link on "The Hot Rock" points to a music album. Ralphmerridew 17:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Copyvio?
Reading through Crime fiction, I found a link to The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time and realised through the edit history or whatever it is called that the list has been deleted as a copyvio.
Is the list of works written by one author (say, Shakespeare) also a copyvio?
I can't imagine that the two books mentioned in The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time have only two to three pages each (which contain those lists).
My questions:
1. Were these lists written by one author (whose copyright would be violated if we published them in Wikipedia)?
2. In the two Crime Companions, is there an article on each of the novels? If so, all we would publish is a table of contents. And I've come across several in Wikipedia.
I've written a note to the user who dleted the lists. Wikikiwi
This is the answer I got:
Hi, the more I surf around here, mainly on the literature pages, the stranger it gets. Just now, reading through Crime fiction, I found a link to The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time and realised through the edit history or whatever it is called that you have deleted the list becuase, as you say, it is a copyvio.
Is the list of works written by one author (say, Shakespeare) also a copyvio?
- Nope; what happened was I edited out the full list, which was compiled by the publisher, the Crime Writers' Association. A bare list of crime novels by Raymond Chandler could not be copyrighted, as it contains only "facts" (like a list of the biggest cities in the world, or whatever). IF this list was compiled by public vote and the reports simply tallied with no editorial decisions, then maybe we could include the full list, but it's probably not necessary, when including 3 or 4 examples would make a better narrative for the article, rather than just a list. The "book that was not a book" on the list, for example, is very interesting and could/should be added back in.
I can't imagine that the two books mentioned in The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time have only two to three pages each (which contain those lists).
- Not sure what you're saying here. I didn't do any editing of the rest of the article, so if it doesn't make sense now selected information can be added back in. My concern that day was clearing out several "Top 100" pages so I was a little quick with the edit; see Rolling Stone's "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" for a good example of how this can be done more seamlessly.
My questions:
1. Were these lists written by one author (whose copyright would be violated if we published them in Wikipedia)?
- That's a good question. The article seems to indicate that it was collected by the CWA from its members, and doesn't say if there was editorializing beyond counting the votes. They would own the copyright, I expect, if anyone did, on said list.
2. In the two Crime Companions, is there an article on each of the novels? If so, all we would publish is a table of contents. And I've come across several in Wikipedia.
- Unfortunately I haven't read them, so you'd be better off asking on the article's talk page (or perhaps better yet, Talk:Crime Writers' Association.
Wikikiwi 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good luck, and thanks for asking me to clarify. This is not my area of expertise, but copyright violations are a Big DealTM. -- nae'blis 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Even if this should by the strictest possible interpretation be a copyright violation, it's hard to see why the publishers of the quoted books would protest over what must surely be a mere technical infringement. Both organizations aim to create exposure and generate sales for crime writers. Having their top 100 lists published on Wikipedia should be a godsend. Tiril 08:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Will cite relevant laws soon if time allows. --86.132.133.119 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio again
Chris Griswold, who removed the lists from the article again, says "See my talk page for details", but I couldn't find anything substantial there. Without the actual lists, we might just as well delete the whole, now pointless, article. I had a look round a number of specialist bookshops (e g Murder One in Charing Cross Road, London), and both books seems to have been out of print for a long time. Thank God anyone who wants to access the lists can do so by clicking on an earlier version—until someone thinks of a way of getting rid of them as well. <KF> 13:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Um...
The Mystery Writers of America has the same list of 100 books that's in the Crown Companion available on their own website (which I've linked to in the main article), so I can't see them having a problem with reproducing it here. Also, I have the Crown Crime Companion, and, like someone else already mentioned/speculated about, this list was nothing more than a reproduction of the Table of Contents.
Sorry, but removing them was ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D2vge (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Crime companions.JPG
Image:Crime companions.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Moving in circles
It is indeed ridiculous to remove the lists for alleged copyright reasons. So first the lists are gone, then the image is threatened with deletion (I just salvaged it), and then a bot comes along classifying the article as a "stub," i e asking people to expand it. In what other direction could it be expanded apart from adding the two lists again? As always, not a rhetorical question. <KF> 23:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
