Talk:Time's All-Time 100 Movies

Reproducing the list
Unfortunately, the list itself is protected by copyright and cannot in accordance with policy be duplicated on Wikipedia. We can use brief excerpts, in accordance with our non-free content policy and guideline, but we can only copy substantially from the list if we get a license from the copyright holder. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with the shortening. Is it worth considering if this topic is notable on its own? Seems like there is no independent coverage about the list, and we could just have the external link at List of films considered the best. Also, is AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies a problem? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Being brought here from a convo on NFC, I have to disagree. The Time list is factual data - these are movies Time editors selected as the top 100 movies. This is data that cannot be copyrighted.  If the issue was that we had included the editor-written creative blurb in full about each movie (if you click through on the Time list) I'd have to agree that would be the copy vio.
 * Alternatively, look at it the other way : I would expect, in time, each movie on this list to source the Time article that it was in the top 100. We could build that list up with some legwork ourselves.  As a whole, those 100 articles would be breaking the same amount of duplication as this one article would be doing.  Again, including the full text blurb for each film from the article would be. --M ASEM  (t) 16:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mind you, the notability issue is separate. This list doesn't seem to have secondary discussion so it certainly could be deleted, but I'd argue (without doing a thorough source check) that the various AFI lists are likely to have more discussion about them from what I've seen in the past. --M ASEM  (t) 16:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fuzzy on the copyrighted nature of lists. I can understand the phone book not being copyrightable because it is just a collection of data. However, this list is a specific presentation made by Time, what they think are the all-time 100 movies, regardless of the additional commentary. It does not seem appropriate to me that Wikipedia can report the full list that Time journalists collaborated to put together for their periodical. Do we have any precedents on this matter, about using an extensive list like this? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the discussion at WT:NFC. Should we be having it here or there? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't "fact" that one movie is better than another, or that this particular group of movies is the best. Unfortunately, where to have the conversation at this point is a bit in the air, as it has been fragmented. I had suggested this page as a forum; another contributor to the conversation evidently disagreed. Now it's being held at WT:NFC and the talk page of an unfinished user essay. Such fragmentation is unfortunate, as it makes it much more difficult to hold a coherent conversation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about putting all discussions on hold and starting a new RFC-type discussion at WT:NFC, where we direct everyone from the fragmented discussions to weigh in? We should centralize all this. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If Moonriddengirl is seeking legal advice on this, it's likely best to hold off on an RFC until we have that to start from. It may make the point moot. --M ASEM (t) 18:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, legal advice being sought. :) I've just gotten word from WMF who I even need to ask (I was not sure if our new counsel is on the clock yet; he's not), so I've written to our associate counsel. She was quite graciously helpful last time I contacted her. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to update that she just wrote me to let me know that she hopes to be able to offer some guidance on the question in the next few days. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the point?
I don't understand why there is a Wiki entry for something that, in effect, has to be linked to in order for it to be read. It just makes no sense to me.

It's like a page for 'The 2015 Hyundai Car Range', which doesn't offer the list, but links to existing pages for specific models, or links to official Hyundai websites for those who want to find out more.

I get that there is a top 100 films list, but why have a page on here if it doesn't actually have said list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.213.79 (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)