Talk:The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time

message: Reading through Crime fiction, I found a link to The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time and realised through the edit history or whatever it is called that the list has been deleted as a copyvio.
Is the list of works written by one author (say, Shakespeare) also a copyvio?
I can't imagine that the two books mentioned in The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time have only two to three pages each (which contain those lists).
My questions:
1. Were these lists written by one author (whose copyright would be violated if we published them in Wikipedia)?
2. In the two Crime Companions, is there an article on each of the novels? If so, all we would publish is a table of contents. And I've come across several in Wikipedia.
I've written a note to the user who dleted the lists. Wikikiwi
This is the answer I got:
Hi, the more I surf around here, mainly on the literature pages, the stranger it gets. Just now, reading through Crime fiction, I found a link to The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time and realised through the edit history or whatever it is called that you have deleted the list becuase, as you say, it is a copyvio.
Is the list of works written by one author (say, Shakespeare) also a copyvio?
:Nope; what happened was I edited out the full list, which was compiled by the publisher, the Crime Writers' Association. A bare list of crime novels by Raymond Chandler could not be copyrighted, as it contains only "facts" (like a list of the biggest cities in the world, or whatever). IF this list was compiled by public vote and the reports simply tallied with no editorial decisions, then maybe we could include the full list, but it's probably not necessary, when including 3 or 4 examples would make a better narrative for the article, rather than just a list. The "book that was not a book" on the list, for example, is very interesting and could/should be added back in. 
I can't imagine that the two books mentioned in The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time have only two to three pages each (which contain those lists).
:Not sure what you're saying here. I didn't do any editing of the rest of the article, so if it doesn't make sense now selected information can be added back in. My concern that day was clearing out several "Top 100" pages so I was a little quick with the edit; see Rolling Stone's "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" for a good example of how this can be done more seamlessly. 
My questions:
1. Were these lists written by one author (whose copyright would be violated if we published them in Wikipedia)?
:That's a good question. The article seems to indicate that it was collected by the CWA from its members, and doesn't say if there was editorializing beyond counting the votes. They would own the copyright, I expect, if anyone did, on said list.  
2. In the two Crime Companions, is there an article on each of the novels? If so, all we would publish is a table of contents. And I've come across several in Wikipedia.
: Unfortunately I haven't read them, so you'd be better off asking on the article's talk page (or perhaps better yet, Talk:Crime Writers' Association.
Wikikiwi 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck, and thanks for asking me to clarify. This is not my area of expertise, but copyright violations are a Big DealTM. -- nae'blis 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: Chris Griswold, who removed the lists from the article again, says "See my talk page for details", but I couldn't find anything substantial there. Without the actual lists, we might just as well delete the whole, now pointless, article. I had a look round a number of specialist bookshops (e g Murder One in Charing Cross Road, London), and both books seems to have been out of print for a long time. Thank God anyone who wants to access the lists can do so by clicking on an earlier version—until someone thinks of a way of getting rid of them as well. <KF> 13:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, someone has said so already at the top of this talk page. <KF> 13:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio again 

message: :Image:Crime companions.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 Wikipedia: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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Crime companions.JPG

message: It is indeed ridiculous to remove the lists for alleged copyright reasons. So first the lists are gone, then the image is threatened with deletion (I just salvaged it), and then a bot comes along classifying the article as a "stub," i e asking people to expand it. In what other direction could it be expanded apart from adding the two lists again? As always, not a rhetorical question. <KF> 23:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving in circles 

message: 76.111.71.133 (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  reinstated u.s. list b/c someone reposted british list 

message: Why does this book appear at no 42 and again at joint no 100? Deb (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A Morbid Taste for Bones

message: I am being informed that the page can no longer be reverted, as the note at the top of this page says, because of intermediate edits.  If this deletion for copyvio is going to stand this time, I think the page should be deleted along with the links to the page on the pages of the organizations. The page, as is, is pointless. The existence of the lists would be more appropriately noted on each organizations page.samtha25 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The lists are not shown on the internet pages of the groups who made them. I do not really understand the copyright violation, and the lists are handy. People with blogs on mystery books use the lists as a reading guide, but blogs are not considered suitable citations. There was a library who put one list on line, but I cannot find it now, to use it as a citation. This blocked article indicated which books were on both lists, and other useful information not shown elsewhere. How many articles reference this article? I am not sure of the point of mentioning the lists without showing them. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gone again, apparently for copyvio