![]() | List of Narcissus horticultural divisions is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on June 5, 2015. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was flagged as copywrite violation, citing Shelter Island. In fact both pages faithfully reproduce the RHS classification because it is an official document and is attributed. See extensive discussion on parent talk page. This page is simply created by moving a section form the Narcissus page. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 23:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
For the record - Talk:Narcissus_(plant)#Horticultural_divisions here is the original discussion - which claims Fair use - -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 05:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Michael Goodyear! :) While the US copyright laws that govern Wikipedia do not protect non-creative speech, the threshold of creativity is very low, and creative elements include not only descriptive language but also facts chosen and the order of facts. For one example of how low the threshold is, consider American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans, where even taxonomic classifications are found to be copyrightable. In one specific example selected to demonstrate the creativity, the Court noted:
Number 04267 reads "guided tissue regeneration--nonresorbable barrier, per site, per tooth" but could have read "regeneration of tissue, guided by nonresorbable barrier, one site and tooth per entry". Or "use of barrier to guide regeneration of tissue, without regard to the number of sites per tooth and whether or not the barrier is resorbable". The first variation is linguistic, the second substantive; in each case the decision to use the actual description is original to the ADA, not knuckling under to an order imposed on language by some "fact" about dental procedures.
It might be helpful to think of it in comparison to photography. A nature photographer does not create the Pheidole purpurea when he takes a picture of it; presuming it's alive and free to move about, he doesn't choose its placement or pose. But though his photograph may be merely capturing what is there, with no special filters or recognizably artistic elements, it is still protected by copyright under US law. Or maps. Maps are recorded observations of natural phenomena, but they are explicitly protected by US copyright law.of copyright law. Obviously, there are limits to how one can briefly describe natural phenomenon, so maps and taxonimic classifications are going to be quite similar. But even where copyright protection is thin, it exists, and rewriting is exactly the right thing to do. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Added illustrations as we did with the species list, and as RHS does. Since the parent page was nominated before the split, I will take a shot at nominating this to be reviewed in tandem.
Who knows - maybe one day it can be raised to FL status? -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 17:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Article quickfailed because standalone lists are not eligible for good article status. Please apply at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Fredlyfish4 ( talk) 21:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | List of Narcissus horticultural divisions is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on June 5, 2015. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was flagged as copywrite violation, citing Shelter Island. In fact both pages faithfully reproduce the RHS classification because it is an official document and is attributed. See extensive discussion on parent talk page. This page is simply created by moving a section form the Narcissus page. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 23:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
For the record - Talk:Narcissus_(plant)#Horticultural_divisions here is the original discussion - which claims Fair use - -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 05:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Michael Goodyear! :) While the US copyright laws that govern Wikipedia do not protect non-creative speech, the threshold of creativity is very low, and creative elements include not only descriptive language but also facts chosen and the order of facts. For one example of how low the threshold is, consider American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans, where even taxonomic classifications are found to be copyrightable. In one specific example selected to demonstrate the creativity, the Court noted:
Number 04267 reads "guided tissue regeneration--nonresorbable barrier, per site, per tooth" but could have read "regeneration of tissue, guided by nonresorbable barrier, one site and tooth per entry". Or "use of barrier to guide regeneration of tissue, without regard to the number of sites per tooth and whether or not the barrier is resorbable". The first variation is linguistic, the second substantive; in each case the decision to use the actual description is original to the ADA, not knuckling under to an order imposed on language by some "fact" about dental procedures.
It might be helpful to think of it in comparison to photography. A nature photographer does not create the Pheidole purpurea when he takes a picture of it; presuming it's alive and free to move about, he doesn't choose its placement or pose. But though his photograph may be merely capturing what is there, with no special filters or recognizably artistic elements, it is still protected by copyright under US law. Or maps. Maps are recorded observations of natural phenomena, but they are explicitly protected by US copyright law.of copyright law. Obviously, there are limits to how one can briefly describe natural phenomenon, so maps and taxonimic classifications are going to be quite similar. But even where copyright protection is thin, it exists, and rewriting is exactly the right thing to do. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Added illustrations as we did with the species list, and as RHS does. Since the parent page was nominated before the split, I will take a shot at nominating this to be reviewed in tandem.
Who knows - maybe one day it can be raised to FL status? -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 17:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Article quickfailed because standalone lists are not eligible for good article status. Please apply at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Fredlyfish4 ( talk) 21:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)