Talk:1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

Early comment

The links here are not very well done. I understand that there are a lot of books, but many of them that actually have pages are not linked. Using a default of "Book title (novel)" is not very effective. Maybe next time it would make more sense to build the page slowly, making sure that each section is correct? I've tried to fix a number of them, but any help in this process would be appreciated. I've made it to lines 103 of both columns in "The 1900s" (and all of the more recent books), plus some books here and there that jumped out at me as ones that obviously should have a link. — [Unsigned comment added by MaryILang (talk • contribs).]

Thanks.

Numbering

The numbering is also most bogus. I suppose part of it is the poor multi-column formatting, but it would be also a good idea to have the numbers not start over at 1 in each century as well... Donald Hosek 00:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, items have been renumbered--Donar Reiskoffer 06:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I need to take a look at the library or Borders or something, but I think the other problem is that the book actually gives everything in the opposite order! Donald Hosek 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And it's confirmed, the list is in reverse order compared to the book. Unless someone beats me to it (or I forget), I'll tackle this over the weekend. Donald Hosek 22:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Protests?

Where is the source for this? - 220.239.248.57 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Should the list of titles be moved back?

The list of titles was removed on the basis of copyright infringement, but I really doubted the fact that posting list of titles is against the copyright law. The book contains the description of each book and this description makes the book unique and to be sold. So I propose to revert the titles list removal. Exuwon (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Would be useful for people to have list of titles of books, it is the only thing that makes the page worthile and useful for public.SpringSummerAutumn (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is a reason why the list is not copyrighted it can be added again. But according to Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service the list is under copyright. Garion96 (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of copyright I would not include it as it is a table of content. Basically it would replace further expansion elaborating the origin and impact of the selection with simply highlighting this particular selection unduly inside wikipedia and I don't see why we should do that. It is also not done in the related articles and the lists are available on the linked webpages. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Information in a list or a table cannot be copyrighted. What is copyrighted is the text that goes along with all book and how the list is presented. So it is fine to list the books. Jaldous1 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's tenuous to claim copyright over a list of titles. Titles aren't copyrightable. There could be a claim as a database right (in jurisdictions where such is recognised) to the collation of such a list of titles. The strong claim to copyright though would be to the critique of each title, not simply the title, and obviously we're not touching that.

Encyclopedically though, I see no need to give the list. Extracting a few, to give an impression of what the list sees as important, would be justifiable. It's not our role to duplicate it though. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You have removed the list of editions that I put here which is not the same as the entire list of books included within the article. The editions list is part of the Release Details/Editions/Publication which is included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article template.Jaldous1 (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)