Talk:NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]I would contest that NETMA, or anyone else, has copyright of these two English language sentences or the facts they contain.
The first create attempt was based on a copy of the reference source for reasons of accuracy. Had I not inserted the web page link, this page would not, or course, have been considered for automatic speedy deletion. So perhaps unreferenced page creation followed by a series of small edits is safer, if not more efficient?
- It was a direct copy and paste, try and expand and add your own words to the phrases RT | Talk 11:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, it was not a direct copy and paste. It was edited with my own words and phrases. But that's beside the point. The issue is that a few declarative sentences of English, which contain agreed facts, cannot necessarily enjoy copyright protection just because they aleady appear on a webpage. Maybe a whole essay or a detailed technical description could, but not a few ordinary sentences. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Affectionately known, by most of those who work there, as "No-one Ever Tells Me Anything". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Expansion of abbreviation
[edit]The NATO Handbook (cited) expands NETMA as "NATO EF 2000 and TORNADO Development Production and Logistics Management Agency". Do we know that our shorter version is correct? Grant (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The Eurofighter site calls it "NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency (NETMA)", so the term is in use. - BilCat (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- But that site says "For more information, see Nato/Netma". And that expands NETMA consistently as "NATO EF 2000 and Tornado Development, Production & Logistics Management Agency". I think we should at least mention the fuller version. Grant (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've no problem with citing both definitions, as both organizations are credible sources. I do note that government organizations are notouriously slow at updating their sites with current information, but a cite is a cite. - BilCat (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- "EF 2000" is obviously out of date and "Development Production and Logistics" looks like nothing more than corporate window-dressing. Such large organizations, certainly military ones, are also notorious for contrived and banal acronyns. But, yes, agree both should be included here somehow. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Stub-Class military history articles
- Stub-Class national militaries articles
- National militaries task force articles
- Stub-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- Stub-Class weaponry articles
- Weaponry task force articles
- Stub-Class Germany articles
- Low-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- Stub-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles