Talk:NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency

Military history: National / Technology / Weaponry

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

NATO (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Expansion of abbreviation

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]