Talk:BBC Science Focus

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Magazines Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article. BBC (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC

There was a recent edition of Focus which assessed several online encyclopaedias, including Wikipedia. Wikipedia, in view of its comments in bird flu, came out as the most up-to-date...so perhaps this merits attention in this article. ACEO 19:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Do you want to do it or shall I? Popexvi 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)I have just done it. ACEO 19:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merge content from a redundant article on the magazine. Not being familiar with the magazine myself I was not sure whether the content I merged in was completely accurate. So please fix any inaccuracies that may exist. --Cab88 11:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bbcfocus177.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intro paragraph presently states "The magazine was taken over by the BBC in mid-2005 ..." but the Origin website home page says that "Origin was founded in 1997 and for a period of time between 2004 and 2006 was wholly-owned by BBC Worldwide Ltd. As a result of a management buy-out in 2006 Origin became an independent business again focusing upon specialist magazine and online publishing."

So if Origin is once again formally (financially, legally) independent from the BBC, what are the conditions that the BBC presumably accepted in return for Origin continuing to use the "BBC" name, which i assume qualifies as a trademark, in the name of the magazine? Is there still close cooperation between BBC Focus magazine and BBC television emissions? Maybe some of this is non-public info, but the article should at least say whether this is done with mutual agreement between Origin and the BBC, or whether there is some alternative situation...

In any case, IMHO the intro paragraph should be updated by someone who knows more and can reference it... Boud (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]