Talk:Skylon (Festival of Britain)

London C‑class Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should it not be mentioned that the conservative government were determined to get rid of the Skylon as it represented a labour success? I know this is political but it is what happened, rather then an opinion. oxyman42

Prove it with a quote or reference.GraemeLeggett 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article may need disambiguation: there is a Skylon Tower overlooking Niagara Falls.

It appears that old crown copyright and therefor PD images do exist:

eg

However the museum is claiming copyright on the scan.Geni 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can claim whatever they want, but a scan is not changing the image in any material way, and even if it did, copyright is contagious, the copyright is still owned by whoever owns the copyright. What makes you say that it has crown copyright?WolfKeeper 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, if the image is under crown copyright then it is not compatible with GFDL, so it wouldn't help anyway. If you can show the original image is PD, then we can grab it, whatever the website says.WolfKeeper 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Official Photograph taken 1951. I fail to see how a British Official Photograph could be anything other than crown copyright. Crown copyright expires after 50 years in the case of photos that is 50 years after it was produced.Geni 22:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it unfortunately. The 50 years goes from the introduction of the 1988 law, before that it seems to have been in perpetuity, and the crown copyright office claim that crown copyright is incompatible with GFDL or even reproduction on websites without payment. See Crown_copyright#United_Kingdom, particularly the last paragraph.WolfKeeper 00:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, on second thoughts that's unpublished. Still digging.WolfKeeper 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We probably don't know when this picture was published. So we're probably screwed.WolfKeeper 00:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dug up the 1911 law that was in force when the photograph was taken, and it gives 50 years copyright from when the negative was made, which would probably be OK,since they would have developed it fairly promptly.[1]. I then had a look at the 1988 law, but I couldn't seem to draw any conclusion as to whether it changed the situation, it wasn't particularly clear.WolfKeeper 00:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion appears to be that because it is a photo and it was taken before 1st of june 1957 the relivant term is date of creation plus 50 years. See this.Geni 00:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's do it.WolfKeeper 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citations

I removed this passage, for which I can find no citations:

Both the name and form of the Skylon perhaps referred back to the Trylon feature of the 1939 World's Fair. Mrs A G S Fidler, wife of the chief architect of the Crawley Development Corporation, suggested the name and said she derived it from skyhook and nylon.

If anyone has a citation, it can go back.

Like a lot of unsourced statements in Wikipedia, it is circulating as a meme. It cropped up in the Daily Telegraph recently, obviously lifted from here. Marshall46 (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found a citation for Mrs Fidler in The Times archive, but not for "skyhook" and "nylon". Marshall46 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing the restaurant section

It doesn't seem relevant at all.