Author talk:Arthur Conan Doyle

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Les textes originaux de Conan Doyle sont dans le domaine public, l'auteur etant mort en 1930, soit depuis plus de 70 ans.

Les traductions sont elles aussi dans le domaine public, ayant ete publiees pour la premiere il y a plus de 50 ans.

Vous pouvez continuez de mettre les aventures ici en les copiant sur mon site

Je suis d'accord que les oeuvres de Doyle en anglais sont dans le domaine public. Donné qu'il était de nationalité anglaise on peut se servir de la lois anglaise au lieu de la loi américaine qui éffectivement ne mettrait en domaine public que les oeuvres édités avant 1923.
Les traductions font sujets des droits de traducteurs. Pour mieux s'aaurer que la traduction choisie est dans le domaine public il faudrait mieux identifier le traducteur, at quand sa version a été éditée.
J'ai l'intention de réorganiser cette page d'une façon que ça peut servir pour tous les utilisateurs anglophone, francophone ou allophone. Eclecticology 19:10, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
J'ai réorganisé la section du "Casebook" de la façon que j'imagine fonctionner pour Wikisource. J'attandrai les commentaires avant de continuer. Eclecticology 19:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm thinking about completely reorganizing these pages; it takes up way too much space. But before I do, I want to know what all those abbreviations for the Sherlock Holmes books are. Are they necessary? I mean, I'll keep them, but what are they? No other books on Wikisource have them. Zhaladshar 14:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if it takes up too much space; that's a subjective judgement. When you go beyond the Sherlock Holmes material Doyle was a very prolific writer. I've very recently won a set of the Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature on eBay, and I should be able to add to that part of this article. The material you have been adding for Doyle is very good. I would be very interested in hearing your reorganization plans.
The abbreviations were put in by the person who started adding the Holmes articles in French. He also included links to a Holmes society website in France (see above), but he went away before he got very far. The abbreviations are used by that society as a short way to refer to the individual stories, but I don't know if their usage is more extensive. My first reaction to them was similar to yours; I can live with them, but I don't find them necessary. Eclecticology 20:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As I read my last comment, I believe I was vague and might have caused some confusion as to what I meant, so I will clarify. If you believe that I want to reorganize the actuall works pages (which I can see where you would pick up on that from what I wrote) I have no desire to do that. I'm personally content with how it's ordered (since I added most of the works here :) ), but I would like reorganize the main page. Whenever I come to Doyle's author page, I'm like "Whoa! that's a lot of scrolling." Since every work is basically a heading, the TOC is quite large (which can easily be turned off) and you have to scroll quite a bit to get to his non-Sherlock Holmes works. I was just planning on making it more like every other author page, where it is just
etc. I WILL keep all the Sherlock Holmes works listed, because people might know just the name of the tale and not what book it appeared in, and the abbreviations if necessary. Again, I am just concerned about cutting down on the amount of scrolling that has to be done because once even more works are added, it will be considerable indeed. Zhaladshar 14:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I fully sympathize with what you are trying to do. Perhaps I'm a little more scroll tolerant than you, but that's no argument for anything. My biggest concern here is that how we handle this could be a model for the way we treat other authors. Doyle would be a good one to work with because he was so prolific in several distinct areas; notably this includes several genres where publications are really collections of many independent works -- short stories, poems, essays.
One thing that we might consider is the idea of author sub-pages. Thus: Author:Arthur Conan Doyle/Sherlock Holmes. This would allow for a more in-depth treatment of the Sherlock Holmes stories on the sub-page, while limiting the entries on the head author page to a combination of links to sub-pages, and the bare book titles.
BTW:-) If you have an extra $80,000 laying around you might look at . At $8.00 per book it's a bargain. When I let my imagination run wild I can see this sort of resource being the basis for a super free collection of on line material. Eclecticology 19:19, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I have exactly $80,000 burning a whole in my back pocket just WAITING to be used :-). I really like your suggestion of the sub-pages—I didn't even think of something like that, but it WOULD be very efficient. We could keep all the Sherlock Holmes works the way they are listed currently and just stick it in its own little page for easy scrolling (not to mention cut down the scrolling on Doyle's main page). And if it's successfully implemented, it could be mimicked for OTHER author pages, for some (like Kipling) have been VERY prolific in certain areas, and to link to EVERYTHING on the main page makes it WAY too long. I think I will go ahead and implement the sub-pages, then, if there is no complaint. Zhaladshar 12:55, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Very good work, though I think that I would have retained the bare list of titles to the Holmes books (but not the individual tales) on the main author page. Eclecticology 18:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've added the infobox to The 'Gloria Scott'. It might be a good idea to do this for the others, but a lot of work. I've also noted that the text links at Wikipedia for Holmes are to an outside source. I've changed this for "The Memoirs", and these should eventually be done for the others. Eclecticology 21:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll probably go and change the Wikipedia links when I get a few free moments (life is a bit hectic now). I chose against leaving the bare list of titles, because I felt that if a person knew WHAT tale he wanted, he would probably know it's a Sherlock Holmes. But I only did this because I'm a big fan of categorizing everything; you or I could easily change, and please do if you feel that's best. Zhaladshar 23:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've added links to the Wikisource texts on Wikipedia. I've done all but The Return of Sherlock Holmes.Zhaladshar 17:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Casebook and US Copyright[edit]

The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes is not entirely in the public domain in the US.

The copyright notice is in error. Life plus 70 does not apply to works that were in copyright in 1978. Those are protected for a total of 95 years from date of publication. (

Work to add[edit]

This The Adventure of the Naval Treaty is attributed and unlinked on WS, however, I am not sure in which section to pop it on the page. If someone who knows the subject matter could help, that would be appreciated. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)