This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here)
"The research isn't really an issue for us. In terms of copyright in lists, "sweat of the brow" isn't a factor for United States copyright law and so isn't a factor for Wikipedia's policies, either. If the material is strictly factual, than compiling it doesn't gain protection, no matter how hard you have to work to do it. The list of dates and names is probably not protected".
The list is not a straight cut and paste, the data has been laid out in a different format. It is fully referenced and the authors of the research fully credited. Do not see how this can be deemed a copyright infringement. ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 09:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC))
Regarding the Duplication Detector report of duplicated text, this has thrown up many duplications mainly because the list consists largely of names, which cannot be re-phrased or spelt differently. That is not the same as copying sentences or written expressions. Also, wording from original historic licences has been re-quoted, cannot be re-phrased, also noted by Duplication Detector, but wrong conclusion reached. ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 09:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC))
Hartley Castle (links) Hemyock (links) Blackdown Hills (links) Chillingham Castle (links) Aydon (links) Naworth Castle (links) Allington Castle (links) Nunney Castle (links) Caister Castle (links) Penrhyn Castle (links) Ogle, Northumberland (links) Caverswall (links) Brougham Castle (links) Beverston Castle (links) Gidea Hall (links) Acton Burnell Castle (links) Bronsil Castle (links) Eshott Hall (links) Ogle Castle (links) Tarset (links) Astley Castle (links) Caverswall Castle (links) West Langdon Abbey (links) Witton Castle (links) Drumburgh (links) Macclesfield Castle (links) History of Workington (links) Bishopton Castle (links) Warblington Castle (links) Beaumys Castle (links) Apley Castle (links) Drayton House (links) Marston Moat (links) William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings (links) Bodiam Castle (links) Raby Castle (links) Royal Scots Navy (links) Baconsthorpe Castle (links) Athelhampton (links) Cottingham, East Riding of Yorkshire (links) Baron Ogle (links) Titchfield Abbey (links) Wilton, Redcar and Cleveland (links) Bennettsbridge (links) William Martyn (links) Ogle baronets (links) Radcliffe Tower (links) Henry de Percy, 1st Baron Percy (links) Wilton Castle (Yorkshire) (links)
And to Licence to fortify the following articles link, again with mention of specific licences (excuse any repetions):
William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings (links) Bodiam Castle (links) Raby Castle (links) Royal Scots Navy (links) Baconsthorpe Castle (links) Athelhampton (links) Cottingham, East Riding of Yorkshire (links) Baron Ogle (links) Titchfield Abbey (links) Wilton, Redcar and Cleveland (links) Bennettsbridge (links) William Martyn (links) Ogle baronets (links) Radcliffe Tower (links) Henry de Percy, 1st Baron Percy (links) Wilton Castle (Yorkshire) (links)
There are even more, where specific licences are quoted but where no link has yet been made to either of these articles, many are linked simply to Battlement or are not linked at all. I suspect a large proportion of the entries in Davis's list are already mentioned in the relevant WP article on the building. These entries generally mention specific licences, by date and licencee and building. This list is thus in part a counter-part to such articles. These licences mentioned in the separate articles have all been sourced independently of Davis' list, as far as I can see. Do you suggest all be deleted from the list? Would you object to a list made up purely of licences already identified in WP articles, in other words a pure compilation job? If so, what restrictions could you realistically put against such a list expanding naturally as people write more articles about more houses and castles? Davis's work is by no means original research, but rather a compilation from well known published sources not needing interpretation, it is pure "sweat of the brow" and cannot be protected by copyright. If you see an entry in the patent rolls "licence to crenellate granted to Xyz" that calls for no judgement, its a factual statement of a licence having been granted. (see my example above). As for your point that WP need not include articles where data is publicly available elsewhere, that cannot be a valid argument. Are you suggesting for example that all the articles on the peerage be deleted, for example a simple List of extant baronetcies, all post 1911 data sourced from Leigh Rayment's list of baronets because the info is easily available on-line? You suggest using only a few illustrative examples, but the list can and should include all to be comprehensive, there aren't that many, fewer than extant baronets, and this would be valuable information. ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 20:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC))
Glad that you're going to work on improving this list, I'm sure it will eventually be a valuable resource. I think, though, that it's important not to give Davis's opinions more credence than other recent ones - regarding Bishopton, for instance, you seem to be treating Davis's opinion as more valuable than Hull's: I'm not sure that's warranted - Davis isn't the final word on the matter is it? Sure, it probably supersedes much older work, but if other recent scholars have expressed different opinions, then per WP:NPOV they should be given equal weight, unless independent sources indicate otherwise. — SMALL JIM 12:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Update: I've just discovered that Davis's up-to-date work on this is at http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/Indexs/Locindex.html. There's much more info there, including his reasons for rejection, etc. — SMALL JIM 18:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here)
"The research isn't really an issue for us. In terms of copyright in lists, "sweat of the brow" isn't a factor for United States copyright law and so isn't a factor for Wikipedia's policies, either. If the material is strictly factual, than compiling it doesn't gain protection, no matter how hard you have to work to do it. The list of dates and names is probably not protected".
The list is not a straight cut and paste, the data has been laid out in a different format. It is fully referenced and the authors of the research fully credited. Do not see how this can be deemed a copyright infringement. ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 09:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC))
Regarding the Duplication Detector report of duplicated text, this has thrown up many duplications mainly because the list consists largely of names, which cannot be re-phrased or spelt differently. That is not the same as copying sentences or written expressions. Also, wording from original historic licences has been re-quoted, cannot be re-phrased, also noted by Duplication Detector, but wrong conclusion reached. ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 09:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC))
Hartley Castle (links) Hemyock (links) Blackdown Hills (links) Chillingham Castle (links) Aydon (links) Naworth Castle (links) Allington Castle (links) Nunney Castle (links) Caister Castle (links) Penrhyn Castle (links) Ogle, Northumberland (links) Caverswall (links) Brougham Castle (links) Beverston Castle (links) Gidea Hall (links) Acton Burnell Castle (links) Bronsil Castle (links) Eshott Hall (links) Ogle Castle (links) Tarset (links) Astley Castle (links) Caverswall Castle (links) West Langdon Abbey (links) Witton Castle (links) Drumburgh (links) Macclesfield Castle (links) History of Workington (links) Bishopton Castle (links) Warblington Castle (links) Beaumys Castle (links) Apley Castle (links) Drayton House (links) Marston Moat (links) William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings (links) Bodiam Castle (links) Raby Castle (links) Royal Scots Navy (links) Baconsthorpe Castle (links) Athelhampton (links) Cottingham, East Riding of Yorkshire (links) Baron Ogle (links) Titchfield Abbey (links) Wilton, Redcar and Cleveland (links) Bennettsbridge (links) William Martyn (links) Ogle baronets (links) Radcliffe Tower (links) Henry de Percy, 1st Baron Percy (links) Wilton Castle (Yorkshire) (links)
And to Licence to fortify the following articles link, again with mention of specific licences (excuse any repetions):
William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings (links) Bodiam Castle (links) Raby Castle (links) Royal Scots Navy (links) Baconsthorpe Castle (links) Athelhampton (links) Cottingham, East Riding of Yorkshire (links) Baron Ogle (links) Titchfield Abbey (links) Wilton, Redcar and Cleveland (links) Bennettsbridge (links) William Martyn (links) Ogle baronets (links) Radcliffe Tower (links) Henry de Percy, 1st Baron Percy (links) Wilton Castle (Yorkshire) (links)
There are even more, where specific licences are quoted but where no link has yet been made to either of these articles, many are linked simply to Battlement or are not linked at all. I suspect a large proportion of the entries in Davis's list are already mentioned in the relevant WP article on the building. These entries generally mention specific licences, by date and licencee and building. This list is thus in part a counter-part to such articles. These licences mentioned in the separate articles have all been sourced independently of Davis' list, as far as I can see. Do you suggest all be deleted from the list? Would you object to a list made up purely of licences already identified in WP articles, in other words a pure compilation job? If so, what restrictions could you realistically put against such a list expanding naturally as people write more articles about more houses and castles? Davis's work is by no means original research, but rather a compilation from well known published sources not needing interpretation, it is pure "sweat of the brow" and cannot be protected by copyright. If you see an entry in the patent rolls "licence to crenellate granted to Xyz" that calls for no judgement, its a factual statement of a licence having been granted. (see my example above). As for your point that WP need not include articles where data is publicly available elsewhere, that cannot be a valid argument. Are you suggesting for example that all the articles on the peerage be deleted, for example a simple List of extant baronetcies, all post 1911 data sourced from Leigh Rayment's list of baronets because the info is easily available on-line? You suggest using only a few illustrative examples, but the list can and should include all to be comprehensive, there aren't that many, fewer than extant baronets, and this would be valuable information. ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 20:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC))
Glad that you're going to work on improving this list, I'm sure it will eventually be a valuable resource. I think, though, that it's important not to give Davis's opinions more credence than other recent ones - regarding Bishopton, for instance, you seem to be treating Davis's opinion as more valuable than Hull's: I'm not sure that's warranted - Davis isn't the final word on the matter is it? Sure, it probably supersedes much older work, but if other recent scholars have expressed different opinions, then per WP:NPOV they should be given equal weight, unless independent sources indicate otherwise. — SMALL JIM 12:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Update: I've just discovered that Davis's up-to-date work on this is at http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/Indexs/Locindex.html. There's much more info there, including his reasons for rejection, etc. — SMALL JIM 18:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)