Talk:List of threatened ecological communities of Australia

copyvio
, I would, of course, prefer not to have this flagged as a copvio, though there is a first time for everything. Please explain why you think it is, or if you are not really sure then ask the creator or noticeboard. There is no case I am aware of that would consider this type of list creation a copyvio, or I would not have created it, but the following should allay any possible concern: "Under s194 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999, copies of up-to-date lists will be made available for purchase for a reasonable price, at a prescribed place in each State and self-governing Territory. In addition to this, up-to-date lists will also be freely available on the internet. — in the link you provided."

Regards, cygnis insignis 06:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, there should be more care while tagging such texts, though I usually check and see it, but I missed it this time. The CCBY4.0 is clearly mentioned on that website. Sorry for the inconvenience, I will revert my tagging. Not carelessness but my bias towards lists came out here. Thanks for the learning though and sorry again. QueerEcofeminist (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for quick reply. I sympathise with a bias towards [against] lists, they are usually unhelpful and unreferenced, but these assemblages are frequently mentioned in later refs to the flora and fauna I usually focus on. So I'm falling back on the "this allows editors to quickly create stubs and reduce all the redlinks" sort of defence, although none but me have been inclined to do that from the WA list I made years ago. In general, raw lists of classification are fully exempt from copyright claim, and intended if not required to be available, localising them helps a lot when working on various forms of taxonomy (by which we communicate all the interesting stuff). Cheers, cygnis insignis 06:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)