930:). At some point everyone needs to step back, take a deep breath, and consider the "legal" difference between A) harmless lists that summarise events (lists that attribute the source both in reference and title), and B) copyright violations where material has been reproduced that financially disadvantages the owner (e.g. text from a book or newspaper, audio and video grabs, etc.). It is unfair to coalesce summary lists like these (and they are all over WP) with copyright issues involving the dark end of the spectrum. Has a legal case ever been brought against WP for reproducing (attributed) material in a summary list? If so, was it successful? What damages do you feel the ABC would be able to claim in practice (and we both know that such a case would never approach court since the ABC have kindly directed their web page visitors to one of the lists—an explicit endorsement)? We must also not start fantasizing that this will all eventually end up in a wood-panelled court room with Perry Mason at the helm resulting in the responsible parties at WP being hauled off to Sing Sing in chains for a thirty-to-life stretch. At worst, all that would happen would be a simple desist notice, at which point the lists could be removed in (oh, say) 60 seconds.
841:(a problem she also noted); there is no critical commentary about the list, it is simply an article that reproduces it. Our best bet of making a good claim for fair use is to discuss the list in critical context; otherwise, we are merely competing with a financial entity. Now, they may be perfectly fine with our reproducing the list; AFI was fine with our reproducing the lists. But we can't presume that. And unless that is confirmed, we have to try to work within the guidelines offered us by legal counsel. She actually suggested that using the lower numbers is safer for us, but I'm not at all sure that most editors would be comfortable selecting, say, the bottom 10. --
1019:, and the e-mail address is listed there. It includes all the information necessary; please ask them to specify that they are releasing all of their lists or to indicate which ones. Generally, there may be up to a week in processing, but if you notify me that they've sent in permission, I'll be happy to try to facilitate that. As to the other articles, I will undoubtedly be looking at them if our attorney says we can't use them. --
1342:, This could not possibly be considered notable. There could be almost any number of articles about polls like this, whuch would have been barely interesting to (the small number of) listeners at the time. At least there can only be one article on fictitious television characters (who are of much greater interest to our readers, especially our female readers, who we are accused of alienating).--
1557:—I don't have time right now to run through the full arguments about copyright, etc, but it does seem to be an unfortunate consequence of WP's policies and guidelines if this can't be kept, especially when the broadcaster appears to be right on board with the existence of the WP article, via their website and live-radio comments. Ravpapa, please note, the noun is "
416:
of wiki-tasks lined up, and am gradually working through them. I'm not some newbie who is pushing some obscure personal cause with these lists. If these lists are deleted for some vague legalistic reason, then I intend to take a lengthy break from WP—a break which I'm certain will remind me why the real world has to be better than this. I doubt I would return.
947:
The attorney currently working with the WMF has said that with lists we are really are only safe where they are completely formulaic. As I have explained, I had already written her just to make sure with lists of this nature, where larger groups of people are polled; her answer will determine how this material is handled. This is up to our attorney. --
978:
eliminating the copyright problem. So far as I know, they are not up for deletion. What I did here was reduce the lists as has long been custom on
Knowledge (XXG) when copyright concerns are raised about lists; that other material may not have been handled appropriately doesn't really have bearing--we don't have a central overview of new content (ala
999:"—well now's your chance. You've opened all of our eyes to the dreadful danger that these lists represent, and none of us should rest easily while all that copyright information is blatantly displayed. I will start the process of asking the ABC—is there a template for the release of the copyright information, and where should the ABC send it?
1385:: I created nine of these deletion requests, one for each of the Classic 100 articles, believing that this was an open and shut case. What a fool I was! There are now nine deletion discussions, all of which are covering exactly the same arguments. Can some smart administrator merge these into one deletion discussion? Thanks --
226:: I have no opinion on the overall appropriateness of the list, but copyright concerns seem valid if the ABC offered a list of candidates from which the ranking was selected. Coincidentally, I have a question in to our associate counsel at this very moment concerning such survey lists in conjunction with
1603:: Having set off this storm, I realize now it is a tempest in a teapot. Because these articles are so marginal that they hardly seem worth the debate. It is a rare day that any of these Classic 100 articles generate more than three or four hits, less than articles on such extremely marginal figures as
1433:
I suggest that, if the community deems this list of value to the encyclopedia, it go out and find some information about it. Perhaps there are news articles which discuss its value, or that analyze the way the list is generated? Otherwise, there is absolutely no logic in simply copying the content of
946:
Knowledge (XXG) does not only consider the risk to ourselves, but to the people that we encourage to reuse our content downstream, including print publications who cannot remove the list in 60 seconds. But all of this is moot. The WMF retains the services of attorneys to help address these questions.
674:
use lists that are based on public surveys, where a preselected grouping of items is offered for ranking. As I mentioned, I've already asked her about this. But she's already told us that we are only safe using lists that are purely formulaic and that, where they are not, we must limit the number we
665:
a copyright problem to list out all 100 or even the majority of them. If they know about the articles
Knowledge (XXG) (still not seeing where, as you say, "Moonriddengirl has confirmed that the ABC themselves know about the lists indicates that they are comfortable with the existence of the lists.")
415:
who has never had a block. I spend a lot of time finding material to reference articles (including visiting libraries), and regularly add significant amounts of content to articles. I know the rules, and often act as a calming influence during debates between other editors. I have an enormous amount
382:
violating any copyright laws. The fact that
Moonriddengirl has confirmed that the ABC themselves know about the lists indicates that they are comfortable with the existence of the lists. What's more, the ABC has been comfortable with these lists for 18 months now (which is plenty of time for them to
1448:
Which is a really good point -- TV series episode lists are just extensions of the main articles. These lists are just kind of...flaoting lists with no real context, especially as, as someone said, they are just one random radio station's version of something that happens with MANY stations. If the
802:
far. The proper course here is to cut as much slack as you are comfortable with insofar as to what portion of the list can be mentioned in order to convey the nature of ABC's list. I should think that the last sixteenth and the first sixteenth (the top six and the last six) is perfectly adequate to
283:
These lists are essentially no different to the multitude of television episode lists that exist on WP (often for obscure shows). All of the television lists have information (e.g. episode titles) that are also provided by other sources around the
Internet (including the networks airing the shows).
797:
Yes. I saw that the whole list was there. GFHandel is highly knowledgable about music and we ought not be driving away valuable editors possessing such expertise. And that can happen when they don’t understand copyright law, go over a line, and the remedy by those exhibiting authority seems overly
406:
legal case in this area, then that might be a different matter, but please don't try to squeeze these (uncontroversial) lists into some sort of legal bag so you can say "the bag's getting really full now, we better be careful". Has there ever been a successful case of any legal entity suing WP for
368:
The ABC presenters themselves (on-air) directed people to the WP site, and thanked (on-air) the people involved in the WP lists for their hard work. We need more promotion for WP, not less. One comment by an ABC presenter (on-air) was that he was glad the WP lists were there so that everyone could
1092:
I won't be closing this one since I don't like to mix my copyright work with other admin proceedings, generally, but it really shouldn't matter to the AfD in general. By reducing the lists, I have removed the copyright urgency, so really this AfD should work on notability alone. If the ABC grants
977:
I'm not going to argue with you about the purpose of
Knowledge (XXG)'s copyright policies. As to the other lists, I have not yet looked at them. I do not generally take action while awaiting attorney response; in this case, it was to prevent the deletion of the articles as a copyright problem by
476:
Knowledge (XXG) is based in the United States; what matters here is whether the content is public domain in the United States. It is U.S. laws with which we must comply. It has long been understood on
Knowledge (XXG) that lists that are based on opinion are copyrightable under U.S. law; we handle
308:
The lists are well constructed and demonstrate features (e.g. sorting and intelligent linking) indicating why WP should be used for more of this type of purpose. The information in the lists contains no opinion at all, and is well referenced. We should be considering some of these lists for being
296:
The lists represent a significant body of work (added to, and maintained by lots of editors). The number of lists will obviously grow over the years as the ABC continues to promote more countdowns (there's been eight so far, and it's only getting more popular). WP (the encyclopaedia for everyone)
288:
lists the title of every episode of the House television series. That page is on the official Fox
Broadcasting website and is (of course) copyright information (can you see the copyright notice at the bottom of the page?). When will you be asking for the list of titles to be removed from WP's web
591:
of events that transpired during the countdown (check the histories). In contrast to your analogy, it's not a copyright problem to mention that "Symphony No. 9 (Choral)" was number 1 in the countdown. Perhaps if material had been reproduced from the
Symphony (printed music or an audio grab) your
458:
s associate counsel, pending the emplacement of our permanent attorney later in the month. I cannot reproduce her e-mails without permission and she prefers to be low profile, but our correspondence has been facilitated by several members of WMF staff (who put me in touch with her) who I'm sure
324:
list allows the sorting by composer, genre, and date completed—which is a facility not found anywhere else on the
Internet. In addition (on that list), the "Rank in the Original 100" and "Change in rank" are valuable tools WP provides to people interested in these lists. (This is not OR as it is
316:
is a non-profit, non-commercial, government-run enterprise. That fits nicely with the philosophy of WP (which is one reason why ABC actively promotes the lists). It cannot be said that the lists are promoting any sort of commercial endeavour (which may be different to some of the other countdown
956:
You have (more than) decimated the eight ABC Classic 100 countdown lists to prevent/reduce the possibility that some downstream entity reproduces the data, falls foul of copyright violation, and causes legal repercussion for WP. We all know that (in this case) that's a practical impossibility,
592:
analogy would be better, but that hasn't happened. I haven't even gone near "fair use" aspects (yet) as the material that you are considering as part of copyright is only the starting point for all the other information attached in the list—have a look at all the other columns at
1611:. This is perfectly understandable: why would anyone look in the Knowledge (XXG) for information on the ABC surveys, rather than at the ABC website itself? In a Google search for "Classic 100 Piano", the Knowledge (XXG) article does not even show up on the first three pages.
757:
five were too and still be well clear of filching anywhere near a significant portion of the work. Can we shelve the bit about copyright violations as an issue under consideration then? It doesn’t seem to be germane with the article written as it currently is. Right?
230:. (If the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright; the question here involves when an organization offers a finite group of candidates which are then ranked by survey.) I've truncated the list to the top 5, even though per
284:
If these lists go (for copyright reasons), then I'm afraid you'd better start to look at deleting all the lists of television shows that detail the titles (which is no different to displaying the titles of musical works). For example, the following page:
1028:
Thank you, and I will start the process. Why not reduce each of the 23 Triple-J lists to five entries to eliminate/reduce the possibility of problems which might arise from downstream copyright-related issues (now that you are aware of their existence)?
520:
All that said, I am confused as to where I "confirmed that the ABC themselves know about the lists". I wonder if you are misreading something I wrote. I have no idea if they are aware of these copies of the lists. You are almost certainly misreading
343:. It's true that a reference could be made to the ABC's page, but we should be aiming to keep readers on WP as much as possible (especially when some of the lists offer so much more than the ABC's web site—such as links to musical works and sorting).
1075:
I have emailed the ABC detailing the issue and asked them to complete the template releasing the information for use on WP. Would it be possible to delay the delete proceedings until a response is heard (at least for a reasonable amount of time)?
1519:
My initial impression, when I encountered these articles, was that they were created by someone from ABC, and their sole purpose was to encourage readers to click on the link to the ABC website. I now realize that this impression was wrong.
660:
Opinion-based lists are copyrightable. Countdowns are opinion-based, unless they are purely formulaic (as in greatest # of sales). It's not a copyright problem to mention that "Symphony No. 9 (Choral)" was number 1 in the countdown, but it
506:
The reason I truncated them to the top of 5 is because of what the
Wikimedia Foundation's attorney said. I have asked her for further clarification on whether there is any rule of thumb percentage we may use, but I have not yet received a
335:
During the countdowns, thousands of readers are attracted to the lists. The links in the lists no doubt drive these thousands to other pages on WP (in the musical arena). We need more readers (some of whom will become editors), not
1473:"—"the Classic 100 original" list is the oldest and simplest of the lot (and it is a pity this discussion is being held on its talk page). Have a look at the state of the most recent of the countdowns (before it was brutalised in
167:
1412:. As one who have absolutely no interest in the Rocky and Bullwinkle show, who has never seen it, and who has no desire to see it, I have to agree with him. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two articles.
575:
are proof that they are comfortable with the list articles. There is no way that the ABC would bring a case against WP based on those actions alone, and I'm quite certain that such a case would fail based on their explicit
407:
representing information in lists? It's obvious to everyone that the legal entities love having the listed information on WP (accurate and referenced of course) as it drives people towards the content the entities promote.
1725:
Let me know when it does have an article on WP, and we can have this discussion. If you did want a pre-emptive point of difference, how about: unlike a list of restaurants, the Classic 100 have no commercial interests?
1511:
has a point. The value that the Knowledge (XXG) article adds to the list is (1) the ability to sort the list by various criteria, and (2) links to other Knowledge (XXG) articles on the specific works cited. There is no
304:
The lists are entirely non-controversial and do no harm. If you don't think they are "notable", just don't go to them. There are plenty of readers and editors who do believe they are notable enough to create and expand
401:
of an "associate attorney" has to do with possible copyright infringement in Australia is anyone's guess. Sorry, but that "legalese" stuff is a red herring in this debate. If you can establish and successfully test a
686:
I understand what you are saying, that opinion-based lists are copyrightable. But they are copyrightable in the sense that another entertainment medium can’t take the material and use it as if it is its own. We can
1524:, at least, one of the main architects of these articles, does not appear to be in the employ of ABC, and is a serious editor. I understand from his comments on this page, and, obliquely, from his comments on my
821:
I didn't pick the number randomly. According to our interim attorney, listing the top 5 out of 100 may be pushing it; those are specifically figures she used prior to my ever becoming aware of this article (see
630:
AFI doesn't have license to grant permission for the language from the scripts; they don't own that copyright. They own the ranking of quotes as well as all the other AFI lists that they've permitted, such as
350:
four months ago (and not by me). That removal was not met with any resistance from respected and experienced editors who watch and maintain the page (and that includes whoever put the notability tag on the
885:
Good. Thanks. I had a boss years ago, who had an expression (“This is gonna be a real butt-itch”) to describe problems that were uncomfortable to deal with in public. I see there are other lists, such as
1211:
encyclopedia; it isn’t a print version that has to fit into two meters of shelf space. There is ample electronic white space for niche articles on music just as there is on individual episodes of
923:
277:
736:, however, have a strong interest in copyright on Knowledge (XXG); I've been working it heavily for almost three years now. We can write about copyrighted lists, but we cannot reproduce them. --
1531:
I am by temperament an inclusionist when it comes to deciding what should be in the encyclopedia. Therefore, though I still believe these articles are mere listspam, I am changing my vote from
1616:
Why anyone would invest time working on an article that no one will read is a mystery to me. But, nonetheless, I say, leave them be - they only take up disk space, no more harm than that. --
706:
copyright violation. I suggest you get your facts concretely established before *working* this angle. Your logic is extremely dubious to me; it’s even right in the article title that we are
890:. There are probably dozens—perhaps scores of these. I’m at a loss to discern the litmus test for what passes and what doesn’t. Good luck; it appears you are in for a trial-by-fire. :-P
986:? If they license the content, the issue of copyright goes away no matter what our attorney may say about the underlying issue (although, of course, notability concerns may persist.) --
528:, including the linked FAQ. If ABC is willing to license this material under CC-By-SA, which allows both commercial reproduction and modification, then all of our issues would be over;
161:
536:.) We do need that permission made official, however; it is not (and never has been) enough for them to permit it to be used on Knowledge (XXG); they have to license it compatibly. --
250:
which has been running five years longer than the ABC one and has attracted independent coverage in the UK. The only coverage I've found for the ABC lists is by the station itself.
926:. Issues to do with why copyright is not a problem were covered there. As one editor commented: "so we should delete all election results in Knowledge (XXG) as well?" (my example:
1016:
1638:"—the corridors of human knowledge have many dark and remote corners. It's nice that WP can have something to offer those who want to find those places. Once again, thank you.
1240:
332:
WP is acting in a journalist capacity in maintaining the lists. WP does up-to-the-minute journalistic work in a multitude of areas, so these lists shouldn't be an exception.
128:
1197:. This idea of *notabilty* is a giant gray area. Like a Supreme Court justice once said about defining pornograhy: “I know it when I see it.” The article in question, “
1047:
She affirms that copyright concerns exist in survey lists of this type and confirms that with survey articles "any use of them should be guided by fair use principles".
749:
Yes, I caught my error and was coming back to correct it when I see you responded. Very well. The article is about a show that was a top-100 and the article mentions
872:
That's my opinion, yes. :) And if our interim attorney provides feedback that would make more of this okay, I'll certainly pass that along as soon as it comes in. --
361:
I notice that five entires (from the 100) have been retained on each of the Classic 100 Countdown pages. Why five? Why not six? Or seven? Do I have to spell out the
1586:, Knowledge (XXG) is also an almanac. These lists are a typical part of those; there's added value here, as GFHandel points out, through links and sortability. --
1318:
1292:
1266:
101:
96:
1185:
The community is trying to build the project here. An article on music will be of little interest to someone interested in cartoons or guns. We have articles on
1634:
Thank you for reintroducing me to a genuinely rare event on WP: an editor who is willing to adapt their thinking and actions based on investigation. Regarding "
105:
1663:
Ravpapa's vote change rationale strikes me as a bit idiosyncratic, as it seems no solid justification has been advanced based on WP policies, but a variant of
667:
88:
325:
observationally confirmable.) The extra information (on most of the lists) is in direct contradiction to one of the key reasons proffered for deletion: "
1102:@Moonriddengirl: You wrote above: "Oh, we don't have to after all; we have permission for those. …" What are "those" for which we have permission? --
1449:
lists aren't covered in multiple places as being somehow different (i.e. more notable) than any other, there's no real point to these articles.
227:
390:(search for "Wiki: Classic 100 10 Years On"). That alone is a glowing endorsement for the let-out clause provided by Moonriddengirl herself: "
182:
957:
however if that's your stance, there's nothing I can do. Why are you permitting the possibility of an identical problem to remain in the 23
149:
961:
lists? In many ways, the information in those lists presents far more of a copyright risk for WP. Shouldn't it be one rule for all at WP?
837:. One of the problems here, and this may be confusing to those who don't follow US copyright law, is that the usage here is not remotely
580:
533:
198:
Not notable, and possible copyright vio. Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website.
486:
1050:
398:
17:
358:(note: none of the endorsement on FB was added by me). This drives people to WP, and we need all the readers and editors we can get.
1679:, and the number of hits generated by any article is completely irrelevant to whether an article deserves to be kept or deleted. --
1482:
1207:
as much interest to those readers as “Metal-Munching Mice” is to its readership. Knowledge (XXG), now at 6,886,259 articles, is an
1062:
Oh, we don't have to after all; we have permission for those. The OTRS template was not logged at each page; I'm remedying that. --
803:
A) convey the nature of the list, while B) leaving 7/8ths of the list off so as there is no copyright violation. Would you agree?
383:
have asked for the list to be removed had they wanted that). Of course the ABC doesn't want the information deleted, and in fact,
143:
1121:
780:; they used to list all 100. :) I'm the one who abbreviated them. The reason it is under discussion still, presumably, is that
92:
1791:. There was an eight cd box set of the results released which was reviewed in The Australian (2 March 2002 by Deborah Jones).
826:). I've asked her if she can give us more concrete guidance, but it usually takes about a week to get a response and that was
854:
Very well. What I see is that as now-trimmed, copyright violation given the current length is no longer a real concern here?
593:
477:
this by truncating them in an attempt to comply with fair use. You can read many conversations about this in the archives of
321:
1428:
the Classic 100 original list. It is simply a beautified copy of the work that ABC has done, with no added value whatsoever.
1800:
1737:
1720:
1687:
1649:
1625:
1595:
1574:
1548:
1496:
1458:
1443:
1394:
1373:
1351:
1333:
1307:
1281:
1255:
1230:
1142:
1133:
1111:
1097:
1087:
1066:
1057:
1040:
1023:
1010:
990:
972:
951:
941:
899:
876:
863:
845:
812:
788:
767:
740:
719:
679:
632:
609:
540:
434:
259:
238:
139:
70:
1413:
1409:
1186:
1117:
927:
276:. If the Classic 100 lists go, then so must the 23 Triple J countdown lists. Note that the Triple J lists were previously
214:
1672:
636:
1815:
36:
732:
wrote that. I didn't nominate this article for deletion, and I have no opinion on whether or not it should be kept. I
189:
1591:
1198:
1107:
692:
339:
The lists support information in other areas of WP. For example, the Classic 100 Piano countdown page is linked in
84:
76:
317:
lists mentioned as reason for deletion by Voceditenore). Note: I have no affiliation or association with the ABC.
1583:
1814:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1796:
1481:
countdown. Value was most definitely being added. The articles are all under constant change and of course,
234:
there may be issues with fair use in that, since the top 5 of the list is the most commercially valuable. --
155:
1755:
Stephens, Tony; Wyld, Ben (21 November 2001), "Play It Again, Wolfgang, Australia's Favourite Decomposer",
979:
202:
1608:
1129:
522:
355:
290:
255:
320:
The lists provide more summary information than is found anywhere else on the internet. For example, the
63:
1685:
1676:
1604:
1587:
1103:
525:, I'm afraid, if you think it is created by ABC. Knowledge (XXG)'s content is mirrored on Facebook. See
1668:
823:
246:
There is nothing notable about these lists. Many classical stations have exercises of this kind, e.g.
958:
887:
838:
273:
1528:
that he believes sincerely and even passionately that these articles add value to the encyclopedia.
478:
1194:
1139:
1094:
1063:
1054:
1020:
987:
948:
873:
842:
785:
737:
676:
537:
460:
235:
175:
1664:
482:
1792:
1733:
1645:
1492:
1474:
1347:
1083:
1036:
1006:
968:
937:
605:
430:
362:
1716:
1621:
1544:
1525:
1454:
1439:
1390:
1329:
1303:
1277:
1251:
1125:
327:
Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website
251:
210:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1680:
1226:
895:
859:
808:
763:
715:
57:
1636:
Why anyone would invest time working on an article that no one will read is a mystery to me
983:
1569:
1368:
982:). You seem to be convinced that the souce would approve of the use of the list; have you
247:
285:
557:
Read the bold writing in point 15 ("the ABC themselves..."). The fact that the ABC has:
392:
if the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright
489:. Titles themselves are not copyrightable; a list based on opinion, on the other hand,
313:
1516:
value added, but I suppose that technological bells and whistles count for something.
280:, however the result was to keep them. That is an important precedent for these lists.
1728:
1702:
1640:
1521:
1508:
1487:
1343:
1078:
1031:
1001:
963:
932:
781:
600:
425:
412:
354:
The lists are actively promoted on Facebook (including by the ABC themselves), e.g.
1712:
1617:
1540:
1450:
1435:
1434:
another organization's website to the Knowledge (XXG) and calling it an article. --
1386:
1325:
1299:
1273:
1247:
1213:
729:
206:
122:
1708:
526:
1405:
1222:
1120:. OTRS permission was received for these but only logged onto one of the lists,
891:
855:
804:
759:
711:
639:. All of these are governed by the copyright release they mailed the foundation.
411:
From a personal point-of-view (which I realise will carry no weight here): I've
51:
691:
about the ABC show, just as we can write about other copyrighted works such as
454:
First, I need to clarify that this is not "an" associate attorney; this is the
385:
the ABC themselves have directed their listeners to the WP site from their own
1562:
1361:
670:. But they have to grant us permission unless our attorney tells us that we
587:
involved (quotations from the scripts). The Classic 100 Countdown pages are
386:
1770:
Bray, David (8 February 2002), "ABC Classic FM this week released the...",
1416:
is a collection of information from a variety of sources; it is an article
1183:(Per the above thread, copyright concerns are no longer an issue here. So…)
1045:
Unfortunately, it seems we must; I have now heard back from our attorney.
798:
draconian. I find a 5% limit to be erring on the side of caution—perhaps
463:
was cc'ed on some of them, and I can certainly forward the others to him.
753:
of them. The ol’ reasonable man-test suggests we could write what the
356:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Classic-100-Ten-Years-On/111930662199693
1561:
ABC", not "ABC", which is used as the noun-title for the US company.
1711:? Should that list also have an article in the Knowledge (XXG)? --
1360:
Does there need to be an audit of such lists throughout WP, then?
702:
copyrighted). You wrote in the preamble of this nom that it was a
1808:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1681:
924:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Triple J Hottest 100, 2009
340:
583:
is not a fair analogy. That page specifically details material
413:
created over 80 articles on WP, and am a regular content editor
372:
There is no copyright problem. The fact that Ravpapa has said "
346:
A "notability" tag (previously placed on one of the lists) was
529:
441:
This is quite long; I'm only addressing the copyright issues.
1017:
Knowledge (XXG):Declaration of consent for all enquiries
1478:
347:
231:
118:
114:
110:
1093:
permission, the full lists can be restored anytime. --
369:
look at the information forever. (How little he knew.)
286:
http://www.fox.com/house/recaps/season-7/episode-1.htm
174:
1709:
Zagat's list of the 50 best restaurants in New York
666:then they may be willing to grant permission. (See
188:
1420:the show. This article, on the other hand, is not
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1818:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1408:notes that this article is no less notable than
710:and discussing it as an encyclopedic treatment.
1138:Exactly; sorry for the confusing pronoun. :) --
668:Knowledge (XXG):Requesting copyright permission
1241:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
532:was willing to do that with their lists (cf.
8:
784:still has some concerns with that action. --
596:that aren't available on the ABC's web site.
928:2008_US_Presidential_Election#State_results
397:Precisely what the (anonymous and unknown)
378:copyright vio" means that there is nothing
1319:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
1313:
1293:list of Radio-related deletion discussions
1287:
1267:list of Music-related deletion discussions
1261:
1235:
1191:individual Rocky & Bullwinkle episodes
824:Knowledge (XXG) talk:NFC#Attorney feedback
1753:There was coverage of the poll itself in
1317:: This debate has been included in the
1291:: This debate has been included in the
1265:: This debate has been included in the
1239:: This debate has been included in the
309:Featured Lists on WP (not for deletion).
698:(along with the movie poster, which is
984:written them to ask for permission yet
289:page that details the titles of every
228:User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists
1051:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Non-free content
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
272:There is precedent for these lists:
564:to link to the Classic 100 WP list,
1424:the Classic 100 Original list; it
581:AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes
534:AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes
487:The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time
24:
1601:Changing from Uncommitted to Keep
1582:According to the first pillar at
1471:...with no added value whatsoever
997:I have not yet looked at them...
675:offer to conform to fair use. --
341:4:33#Performances and recordings
1777:"ABC Mozart gets his wind up",
1707:How does this list differ from
1122:Talk:Triple J Hottest 100, 1989
1116:I think she's referring to the
570:endorsed the lists on Facebook,
1479:Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC)
594:Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC)
322:Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC)
297:should be there to record the
1:
1762:"Mozart Bach to the future",
1414:The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show
1410:The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show
1187:The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show
1015:There is a template; it's at
459:would verify them if needed.
224:Comment on copyright question
1584:Knowledge (XXG):Five pillars
633:AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies
301:of the events for posterity.
637:AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs
269:for the following reasons:
1835:
1775:along with smaller pieces
1199:Classic 100 original (ABC)
1124:, instead of all of them.
1118:Triple J Hottest 100 lists
776:The articles mention five
567:endorsed the lists on-air,
85:Classic 100 original (ABC)
77:Classic 100 original (ABC)
71:03:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
1801:13:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
1738:19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
1721:16:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
1688:02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
1650:20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
1626:17:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
1596:02:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
1575:13:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
1549:05:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
1497:19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
1459:15:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
1444:12:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
1395:12:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
1374:09:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
1352:00:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
1334:23:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1308:23:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1282:23:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1256:23:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1231:22:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1143:13:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1134:07:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1112:06:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1098:20:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
1088:06:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
1067:02:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
1058:01:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
1041:01:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
1024:00:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
1011:00:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
991:00:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
973:23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
952:20:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
942:20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
900:23:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
877:23:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
864:23:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
846:23:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
813:23:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
789:22:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
768:22:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
741:22:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
720:22:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
680:22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
610:21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
541:21:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
435:20:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
260:16:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
239:15:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1811:Please do not modify it.
1675:. Note that this is not
562:modifying their own site
32:Please do not modify it.
1189:, and have articles on
708:speaking of an ABC show
560:gone to the trouble of
1609:Walter Willson Cobbett
1219:Rocky & Bullwinkle
485:. For an example, see
278:nominated for deletion
1757:Sydney Morning Herald
1605:Johann Gottlieb Graun
456:Wikimedia Foundation'
1677:America's Got Talent
1483:there is no deadline
1451:♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫
959:Triple J Hottest 100
888:Triple J Hottest 100
274:Triple J Hottest 100
1764:Gold Coast Bulletin
1673:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1195:Metal-Munching Mice
694:Mission: Impossible
461:User:Philippe (WMF)
1789:, 21 November 2001
1781:, 23 November 2001
1766:, 22 November 2001
1475:copyright paranoia
579:The comparison to
363:proof by induction
44:The result was
1336:
1322:
1310:
1296:
1284:
1270:
1258:
1244:
1184:
836:
417:
232:attorney feedback
219:
205:comment added by
69:
1826:
1813:
1790:
1782:
1774:
1767:
1759:
1736:
1731:
1683:
1648:
1643:
1588:Michael Bednarek
1572:
1567:
1495:
1490:
1371:
1366:
1323:
1297:
1271:
1245:
1182:
1104:Michael Bednarek
1086:
1081:
1049:(More detail at
1039:
1034:
1009:
1004:
971:
966:
940:
935:
834:
608:
603:
433:
428:
410:
291:episode of House
218:
199:
193:
192:
178:
126:
108:
66:
60:
49:
34:
1834:
1833:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1816:deletion review
1809:
1785:"Mozart tops",
1784:
1776:
1769:
1761:
1754:
1732:
1727:
1701:A question for
1644:
1639:
1570:
1563:
1491:
1486:
1369:
1362:
1082:
1077:
1035:
1030:
1005:
1000:
967:
962:
936:
931:
922:Have a read of
832:; I lose track)
604:
599:
585:from the movies
429:
424:
365:principle here?
248:Classic FM (UK)
200:
135:
99:
83:
80:
64:
58:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1832:
1830:
1821:
1820:
1804:
1803:
1787:MX (Australia)
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1629:
1628:
1613:
1612:
1598:
1577:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1430:
1429:
1398:
1397:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1355:
1354:
1337:
1311:
1285:
1259:
1233:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1140:Moonriddengirl
1095:Moonriddengirl
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1064:Moonriddengirl
1055:Moonriddengirl
1021:Moonriddengirl
988:Moonriddengirl
949:Moonriddengirl
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
880:
879:
874:Moonriddengirl
867:
866:
849:
848:
843:Moonriddengirl
839:transformative
830:the day before
816:
815:
792:
791:
786:Moonriddengirl
771:
770:
744:
743:
738:Moonriddengirl
728:No, I didn't.
723:
722:
677:Moonriddengirl
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
597:
577:
573:
572:
571:
568:
565:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
538:Moonriddengirl
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
421:
420:
419:
418:
408:
395:
370:
366:
359:
352:
344:
337:
333:
330:
318:
310:
306:
302:
294:
281:
263:
262:
241:
236:Moonriddengirl
217:) 2 March 2011
196:
195:
132:
79:
74:
52:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1831:
1819:
1817:
1812:
1806:
1805:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1793:duffbeerforme
1788:
1780:
1773:
1765:
1758:
1752:
1749:
1748:
1739:
1735:
1730:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1704:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1689:
1686:
1684:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1651:
1647:
1642:
1637:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1599:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1578:
1576:
1573:
1568:
1566:
1560:
1556:
1555:Probably keep
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1529:
1527:
1523:
1517:
1515:
1514:informational
1510:
1506:
1498:
1494:
1489:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1432:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1400:
1399:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1380:
1375:
1372:
1367:
1365:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1338:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1210:
1206:
1205:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1181:
1178:
1177:
1144:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1096:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1085:
1080:
1074:
1068:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1003:
998:
994:
993:
992:
989:
985:
981:
980:WP:OTHERSTUFF
976:
975:
974:
970:
965:
960:
955:
954:
953:
950:
945:
944:
943:
939:
934:
929:
925:
921:
901:
897:
893:
889:
884:
883:
882:
881:
878:
875:
871:
870:
869:
868:
865:
861:
857:
853:
852:
851:
850:
847:
844:
840:
833:
829:
828:yesterday (or
825:
820:
819:
818:
817:
814:
810:
806:
801:
796:
795:
794:
793:
790:
787:
783:
779:
775:
774:
773:
772:
769:
765:
761:
756:
752:
748:
747:
746:
745:
742:
739:
735:
731:
727:
726:
725:
724:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
695:
690:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
678:
673:
669:
664:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
638:
634:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
611:
607:
602:
598:
595:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
569:
566:
563:
559:
558:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
542:
539:
535:
531:
527:
524:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
492:
488:
484:
480:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
462:
457:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
432:
427:
423:
422:
414:
409:
405:
400:
396:
393:
389:
388:
381:
377:
376:
371:
367:
364:
360:
357:
353:
349:
345:
342:
338:
334:
331:
328:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
300:
295:
292:
287:
282:
279:
275:
271:
270:
268:
265:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
240:
237:
233:
229:
225:
222:
221:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
191:
187:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:Find sources:
133:
130:
124:
120:
116:
112:
107:
103:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
81:
78:
75:
73:
72:
67:
61:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1810:
1807:
1786:
1778:
1772:Courier-Mail
1771:
1763:
1756:
1750:
1700:
1660:
1635:
1600:
1579:
1564:
1558:
1554:
1536:
1532:
1530:
1518:
1513:
1504:
1503:
1470:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1401:
1382:
1363:
1339:
1314:
1288:
1262:
1236:
1218:
1214:The Simpsons
1212:
1208:
1203:
1202:
1190:
1179:
1126:Voceditenore
1046:
996:
831:
827:
799:
777:
754:
750:
733:
730:User:Ravpapa
707:
703:
699:
693:
688:
671:
662:
588:
584:
576:endorsement.
561:
490:
455:
403:
391:
384:
379:
374:
373:
326:
298:
266:
252:Voceditenore
243:
223:
201:— Preceding
197:
185:
179:
171:
164:
158:
152:
146:
136:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1682:Ohconfucius
1669:WP:NOTPAPER
1537:Uncommitted
162:free images
1779:Herald-Sun
1209:electronic
1193:, such as
704:*possible*
59:have a cup
1665:WP:NOHARM
1526:talk page
1326:• Gene93k
1300:• Gene93k
1274:• Gene93k
1248:• Gene93k
589:summaries
507:response.
380:obviously
1729:GFHandel
1703:GFHandel
1641:GFHandel
1522:GFHandel
1509:GFHandel
1488:GFHandel
1201:” is of
1079:GFHandel
1032:GFHandel
1002:GFHandel
964:GFHandel
933:GFHandel
835:checked.
782:GFHandel
601:GFHandel
426:GFHandel
387:web site
375:possible
215:contribs
203:unsigned
129:View log
1713:Ravpapa
1661:Comment
1618:Ravpapa
1541:Ravpapa
1505:Comment
1485:at WP.
1477:): the
1436:Ravpapa
1387:Ravpapa
1383:Comment
1344:Grahame
348:removed
299:details
207:Ravpapa
168:WPÂ refs
156:scholar
102:protect
97:history
1571:(talk)
1533:Delete
1406:Greg L
1402:Delete
1370:(talk)
1340:Delete
1223:Greg L
892:Greg L
856:Greg L
805:Greg L
760:Greg L
712:Greg L
696:(film)
399:advice
351:page).
244:Delete
140:Google
106:delete
53:Coffee
1760:,
1422:about
1418:about
689:write
479:WT:CP
336:less.
305:them.
183:JSTOR
144:books
123:views
115:watch
111:links
65:essay
16:<
1797:talk
1783:and
1768:and
1751:Keep
1717:talk
1671:and
1622:talk
1592:talk
1580:Keep
1565:Tony
1545:talk
1539:. --
1455:talk
1440:talk
1391:talk
1364:Tony
1348:talk
1330:talk
1315:Note
1304:talk
1289:Note
1278:talk
1263:Note
1252:talk
1237:Note
1227:talk
1204:just
1180:Keep
1130:talk
1108:talk
1053:) --
896:talk
860:talk
809:talk
764:talk
755:last
751:five
716:talk
700:also
635:and
523:this
483:WT:C
481:and
404:real
312:The
267:Keep
256:talk
211:talk
176:FENS
150:news
119:logs
93:talk
89:edit
46:keep
1607:or
1559:the
1535:to
1324:--
1298:--
1272:--
1246:--
1221:.
1217:or
800:too
778:now
672:can
530:AFI
314:ABC
190:TWL
127:– (
68://
62://
56://
1799:)
1719:)
1667:,
1624:)
1594:)
1547:)
1507::
1457:)
1442:)
1426:is
1404::
1393:)
1350:)
1332:)
1321:.
1306:)
1295:.
1280:)
1269:.
1254:)
1243:.
1229:)
1132:)
1110:)
898:)
862:)
811:)
766:)
734:do
718:)
663:is
491:is
394:".
329:".
258:)
213:•
170:)
121:|
117:|
113:|
109:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
50:—
48:.
1795:(
1734:.
1715:(
1705::
1646:.
1620:(
1590:(
1543:(
1493:.
1469:"
1453:(
1438:(
1389:(
1346:(
1328:(
1302:(
1276:(
1250:(
1225:(
1128:(
1106:(
1084:.
1037:.
1007:.
995:"
969:.
938:.
894:(
858:(
807:(
762:(
714:(
606:.
493:.
431:.
293:?
254:(
209:(
194:)
186:·
180:·
172:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
142:(
134:(
131:)
125:)
87:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.