Talk:BOAC Flight 712

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
"The Albert Memorial" - the London Portal's current "Showcase Picture" This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
London Transport
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on London's transport system. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or visit the Portal.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (add assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the London Transport WikiProject.



This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
A fact from BOAC Flight 712 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 19 May 2008.
Wikipedia


[edit] Citations

Being under 50 years old, the citations are still covered by Crown Copyright, so we probably shouldn't include them in full. David Underdown (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a read, and having done so I've added refs and indicated the cititions are Crown Copyright. They are accurately reproduced (which is why they have to be in full) and not used in a misleading way, so we should be covered. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem we can't guarantee how they would be used in a derivative work, which is allowed under the gfdl used by Wikipedia, but could fall foul of those restrictions in Crown Copyright. David Underdown (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What about non-free images? Surely that's the same case. The website has to be responsible for complying with copyright rules for any non-free content, same as Wikipedia is for its own. That is not Wikipedia's concern. Mjroots (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
In order to simplify the process and reduce unnecessary administration and delay for re-users of Crown copyright material, extracts of up to 250 words from official sources may be re-used without the need to apply for a licence. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd missed that, so we should be OK then - I think we can justifiably claim that they are two separate extracts, despite being from the same Gazette. David Underdown (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)