Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Goodrich Court article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Herefordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Herefordshire 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.HerefordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HerefordshireTemplate:WikiProject HerefordshireHerefordshire
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Quite take the point. I just don't know the copyright status. I took it from the Lost Heritage website, http://lh.matthewbeckett.com/index.html , and it clearly is old, doesn't belong to the website creator, and has no credit on that site. Thus, I think it's probably pretty safe, but I'm no copyright expert. What it does do is give a clear picture of what the court looked like, which the Victorian print, whilst very pretty, does not. As such, I prefer it. But I can't argue with the guy who gave us GA for Raglan Castle. KJP1 (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I agree, its a better picture for the article - my concern is purely on the copyright side of things. I remember this problem when I created the first version of the article - I couldn't find a good picture that wasn't potentially copyright... It's a challenge for photographs that might be around 1900+ in date. Where we don't have a photographer's name, it is quite plausible that they may have been taken (say) by a 20 year old, who could easily have lived to seventy, in which case the "lifetime + 70 years" of copyright protection won't run out until 2020+, depending on the exact date of the photo. With a photo with a firmer date (e.g. 1880s) we'd be on somewhat safer ground, but as you say, the website isn't giving an indication there. Hchc2009 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough, I shall set off to hunt for something older, with a date. Don't you sleep, or are you not in the UK? KJP1 (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply