Talk:The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time

This article is rated Stub-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 This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Random House#Crown Publishing Group|Crown]] Anchor Random House#Crown Publishing Group links to a specific web page: Crown Publishing Group. The anchor (#Crown Publishing Group) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Anyone interested in the lists can access them via the edit history.

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)[reply]

Good luck, and thanks for asking me to clarify. This is not my area of expertise, but copyright violations are a Big Deal^TM. -- nae'blis 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, someone has said so already at the top of this talk page. <KF> 13:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

76.111.71.133 (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this book appear at no 42 and again at joint no 100? Deb (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the CWA list have 102 instead of 100? The two novels by Ellis Peters (A Morbid Taste for Bones and The Leper of Saint Giles) are tied for #42 (with #43 skipped) on the original list, I believe. On this list they are further down! Two web sites post this CWA list with the two novels at #42, coming to 100 titles: MDBenoit ^[1] and Past Offences.^[2] Who added books?

Prairieplant (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it out. Vandalism by 223.223.150.124 who added two books not belonging on the list. Now removed. Have to watch out for this! Prairieplant (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to stop random vandalism of the books in these two lists? Some unnamed person inserts and deletes books at will, so others must watch to be sure the list is still accurate.

What a strange way to fill one's hours. Prairieplant (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is why the watchlist oversight system exists, so you can keep an eye on specific pages you are concerned about.

But that sort of nonsense is fairly routine in WP; I would not be overly concerned about it.

If I see Captain Underpants on a list of this type, then it has clearly been tampered with. I simply go into the log, undo it, and drop a vandalism note on the offender's Talk page.

You can then go further, checking his edit history, and fixing everything else the little shit has buggered up.

Once the offender has accumulated a few such warnings, ideally, he will then be blocked by an admin. One hopes, permanently.

99.237.143.219 (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The recent vandals do not have talk pages, so there is no way to leave a message, is there? Prairieplant (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I click on "contribs" for you, we see you:

Special:Contributions/Prairieplant

That is a pattern you can type into the Search window, just like that. Okay? Special ... (no http, blah, blah).

Now, with one of these malefactors, we click on his IP address in the log. That gives us:

Special:Contributions/<his IP address>

See, it's the same quasi-page name.

That is where we check for what other trouble he has been causing.

He also has a "talk" we can click on.

With some of these people, it will be necessary to create the Talk page, but that is no big deal.

Just use ==August 2013== to begin.

With these guys, it is always best to use "undo". That is less work for you, with less chance for you to make an editing mistake. It also generates a comment message to show who the troublemaker was.

You know how to use WikiBlame to find who caused the problem in the first place?

Sincerely, 99.237.143.219 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you are a fountain of useful knowledge. Thanks so much. Fixing vandalism is good, but tracking down the source in the way you describe seems more useful and effective in stopping it. I had no idea I could or should create a Talk page for someone else, but I see the effectiveness for communicating. I will try this now.Prairieplant (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC) I do not know what WikiBlame is, sounds mean! How do people generate those "welcome to Wikipedia, it looks like vandalism" messages, sort of forms with the specifics added? Where are the comment messages generated by Undo? You can see that there is much in Wikipedia that I have yet to learn.Prairieplant (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go into the log. Click on "Revision history search".

That opens up WikiBlame.

Hopefully the miscreant added something that's easy to search for, like "I am King of the World!!"

So search for "world".

(The other parameters can be ignored unless you are searching a very big, very old page.)

WikiBlame shows when the text was added (or conversely, deleted, if you request that).

That gives you day and time.

Back into the log.

Click the radio buttons beside the Before and After log entries.

Click "Compare selected revisions".

That should confirm you have found your culprit.

Many of the users who deal with troublemakers appear to be using a standard text.

I don't know where that comes from.

But it is probably a template, and they are probably doing a "subst" of the template, with the specification of a couple of parameters.

Using Undo generates the edit summary line. You generally leave that summary intact, or you may append to it.

For those users who are rollbackers, that process is even easier.

Happy hunting, 99.237.143.219 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am being informed that the page can no longer be reverted, as the note at the top of this page says, because of intermediate edits. If this deletion for copyvio is going to stand this time, I think the page should be deleted along with the links to the page on the pages of the organizations. The page, as is, is pointless. The existence of the lists would be more appropriately noted on each organizations page.samtha25 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are not shown on the internet pages of the groups who made them. I do not really understand the copyright violation, and the lists are handy. People with blogs on mystery books use the lists as a reading guide, but blogs are not considered suitable citations. There was a library who put one list on line, but I cannot find it now, to use it as a citation. This blocked article indicated which books were on both lists, and other useful information not shown elsewhere. How many articles reference this article? I am not sure of the point of mentioning the lists without showing them. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]