Talk:List of Narcissus horticultural divisions

Copywrite issues

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)

• @Mgoodyear: Hi, I do see that you moved this from the larger article as you say, though looking back at RHS, their web content claims copyright on most pages. While facts are not copyrightable, presentation of facts can be, so if this page matches the presentation of their listings it will need to be re-written. The link given for the source is stale now as well. Please advise, thanks, Crow^Caw 00:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. I didn't write this, only moved it. But on the talk page of the parent article there was extensive discussion on this and the consensus was that it had to be identical to the RHS classification to make any sense. I suppose the alternative would be to merely summarise and link it, which was once the case. I would think that as long as it clearlry states that it is the RHS classification and does not pretend to be something else it would be acceptable. I will take another look, and also see how other authors handle this - because as with the link the bot identified, it has been widely copied with attribution. Another solution would be to ask RHS for permission. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:03, 15 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)

I've updated the reference. Copyright is a tricky area, but I suspect that it's not ok to simply copy the descriptions of the divisions. List the divisions, sure, but then I think you have to paraphrase the descriptions. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Definitely a tricky area. Thanks for fixing the reference, though it now shows that the page and the source do match. By having it here and presented this way, because of the free license under which we publish, we are essentially giving away someone else's (intellectual) property, which is where the problem is rooted. Yes we can positively state that RHS owns it, but our license allows anyone to basically do anything they want with it, including modify and re-sell it, which I suspect RHS will not be happy with. I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes, but even the classifications themselves may be copyrighted, since they are the product of someone's creative decision making. For comparison, consider Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. We cannot even say who came in #1, let alone include even small segments of the list.
• Allow me to contact The Expert on these things to see what options we have to keep this. Crow^Caw 23:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. However, the classification into divisions is somewhat different from Rolling Stone's lists of albums. The RHS acts as the International Cultivar Registration Authority for Narcissus as part of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. The ICNCP is clear that copyrighted or trade-marked terms cannot be used within its provisions. So the divisions of the cultivars must be public as they are part of scientific nomenclature. Everyone has to be able to say that a particular cultivar belongs to Division 1, Trumpet Daffodil Cultivars. However, I agree that the description of the divisions may well be covered by copyright, and the best we can do is to list the divisions and refer readers to the RHS for the descriptions. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime rather than risk deletion, I replaced the list with a table and rewrote the definitions. It is neater I believe, and should answer the above concerns. I note the list has been there for two years without a complaint. Regardless of the legal position the ethical one is the open sharing of scientific knowledge, which I have been at the forefront of in my academic career. I have gone out of my way to acknowledge Sally Kington's intellectual and creative contribution here. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:46, 16 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)

Status

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)

GA Nomination

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)

My mistake. Done. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)