Talk:The Mysterious Mr Quin

Fair use rationale for Image:The Mysterious Mr Quin First Edition Cover 1930.jpg
Image:The Mysterious Mr Quin First Edition Cover 1930.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 21:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

JTomlin put a fair use rationale with the image. No artist name is available to him from the image used, included in Details (after one clicks on the image in the article, this option shows). --Prairieplant (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I own the original. The drawing is by my grandfather, Thomas Derrick – who died in 1954 and is identified as the artist on some recent reprints. I have added his name here and also to the entry on The Big Four, which is the other Agatha Christie cover he did. I have no objection to the use of the image and I am sure that it would be considered fair use by the publisher. 88.2.225.36 (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not know if the fair use form was ever completed, that notice from the bot being almost 8 years old. Perhaps someone who knows how to follow up on that (sorry I do not) can see if it is still needed, or delete the bot message if the task has been done. Second point, you have no Wikipedia account -- identified only by IP address, so how are you a source as to the name of the artist? The article linking to Thomas Derrick says nothing about his work on two Agatha Christie covers. We need a source for the claim that can be cited, I think. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have both originals, but more to the point he is named on the published dust jackets. You can also see his name on The Big Four cover (in the corner). 88.2.225.36 (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are still unknown, unnamed IP address. Fair use rationale is a term in the copyright law. Correcting my earlier post, I do know how to find the fair use rationale, by clicking the image in the article and then clicking for more details. The image in the article shows no name of an artist. The first editions for sale on line that I found so far have no slip cover with the image. Click the image in the article to see that the fair use rationale has been written, and the person who prepared the image for use in Wikipedia could see no artist's name -- that person was working from an image, not an original cover. Possibly the bot notice can be deleted? --Prairieplant (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Prayed for him to die?
I have removed the statement in "The man from the sea" that the wife prayed for her husband to die, not to live. From the book: "The Spanish servants thought I was praying for his life to be saved. I wasn't. I was praying that I might wish him to be spared. I was saying one thing over and over again, 'God help me not to wish him dead. God, help me not to wish him dead.' But it wasn't any good. All the time I hoped - hoped - and my hope came true." The plot section is too long anyway, so I thought removing would be better than correcting. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr Harley Quin
I created a separate small article about the character without realizing that some facts about him are also mentioned in this article. I have done right though, I just wish it wouldn't redirect from Harley Quin (character) to this article about a book. :) Li 16:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilange (talk • contribs)

Page name change requested
Official article name should be The Mysterious Mr Quin, not The Mysterious Mr. Quin (see below). Quis separabit? 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to The Mysterious Mr Quin Mike Cline (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The Mysterious Mr. Quin → The Mysterious Mr Quin – -- There is no period in book's title per original cover and UK MOS custom at the time. Quis separabit? 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Informal investigation suggests that the original styling of the title (and of the text) consistently had no point after "Mr", in accord with long-standing British usage. Several sources, even those devoted to this author, add a point. But the author's preference is certainly most important; and WP:ENGVAR would decide the matter anyway, even if there were no evidence of the author's and original publisher's preferences. The article needs revision throughout, to establish uniform British usage. N oetica Tea? 23:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is the title.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support "Mr Quin" it should be. Bielle (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Antisemitism
It is noticeable that this extremely long article makes no mention of the antisemitism in the "The Soul of the Croupier", antisemitism that was denounced by the Anti-Defamation League. I think her description of "men of Hebraic extraction, sallow men with hooked noses, wearing rather flamboyant jewellery" deserves mention. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"Harley Quin" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harley_Quin&redirect=no Harley Quin] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

you mentioned when there's a primary topic, the hatnote should point there. But what is the primary topic in this case? The DC Comics character is the primary topic for the "Harley Quinn" (two n's), while the Agatha Christie character is the primary topic for "Harley Quin" (one n), yet each of these can be reasonably confused not only with each other but with every item listed at Harley Quinn (disambiguation), because we don't know what the reader meant based on just the typo. --Joy (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We added the hatnote to this article because of the possibility that readers might land here after misspelling Harley Quinn. Because there's a primary topic for that spelling, we can presume that they were probably looking for the DC Comics character. If there was no primary topic, linking to the disambiguation page would be the right call—but since there is one, we shouldn't direct those readers to the disambiguation page and force them to make an extra click. - Eureka Lott 02:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a primary topic for each of the spellings, yes, but not for the concept of typoing, we don't know if perhaps it's more common to typo one subset of eponymous topics because some set of particular sources typo them... But anyway, since the hatnote is there, I'll add both and we can hopefully measure how they attract the reader interest. --Joy (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)