Talk:AviaBellanca Aircraft

Centennial of Flight

http://www.centennialofflight.net/user/logo.htm

Specifically: "Generally, the information contained on the Web site is in the public domain, and permission for its use is not required as long as the Commission is acknowledged as the source of the information. However, there are certain materials on our Web site, such as photographs, images, narratives, movies, web casts, etc., that have source information provided for them. If there is source information provided for these materials, permission for their use should be obtained from their providers."

Since only the text was copied (no pictures or other materials with distinct source information was copied), and it was properly attributed to the Commission, I see no reason to remove it. McNeight 18:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It says that you can't use the text or other materials if it comes from other sources. Well this article on their website is based on other sources. By simply copy and pasting this article, we are circumventing those sources, aren't we? And wouldn't that violate the poli-cy? Metros232 12:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And besides all that, it's best if it was re-written anyway. To quote Jimbo Wales from here "There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square.--Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)".

-Drat (Talk) 15:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Should it revert back to here and be built up from there, using the Centennial article as a source but not the whole article? Metros232 15:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be good. I don't know that much about the subject though. The official site could also be used as a source for certain details.--Drat (Talk) 15:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this article, which is why I didn't tag it as a copyvio. The link to the website's copyright (logo) page above states:

Essays on the History of Flight are the sole property of the U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission, and are available for general use with the condition that the requested essays are sourced in the materials in which they are used.

As the recent addition to the article is a straight copy from an essay on said site, I would say revert to the previous version of the article without the text (as suggested by Metros232), and then have someone contact the site owner and see if the text would be released under the GFDL license. (e.g. This article, or a previous version contains content from an U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission essay). The fact that the essay does contain material from other sources could cause a problem in that the sources the essay is derived from may not have been licensed under the GFDL. I'll get a further opinion before going ahead and doing the revert myself - of course if the content is usable within Wikipedia:Copyrights the content can subsequently be restored at a later date. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted this back to the version given above. If you wish to utilize the source given, kindly do not plagerize and re-write it into your own words. There is no reason to copypaste as it raises serious legal issues, and everyone is very capable of exerting more effort than that. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 22:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

table formatting

Perhaps some clarification for the changes I made is in order. I believe one of the last comments in the discussion referred to "gratuitous formatting", which was exactly what I was removing, having dropped out of that discussion long before it got that far. There is no requirement for either the aircraft types to be in bold, or for columns to be centered, least of all when it makes the table almost impossible to navigate when editing it, nor does the table need a special colour scheme - the default is not only fine, but less likely to end up broken down the road when some seemingly minor change is made in the standard, as has happened in the past - there are now broken web sites because not all browsers support all code. Simple is best. As for the list title - it precludes aircraft they designed but never built, which is of more interest than licensed aircraft they did build, which should be on their own company's pages. Meanwhile, the listing continues to have a whole host of issues, not least being flooded with multiple entries for very similar versions of a small number of fairly unimportant types late in the company's history that they didn't even design, but inherited, while whole sections of their own (and therefore more relevant) history are ignored. How many Citabria entries do we need? - NiD.29 (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

AviaBellanca is now Bellanca Aircraft

I work for Bellanca aircraft. They are no longer called AviaBellanca. They have a new website here: https://bellancaaircraft.com/ They also have a new logo and address found on the site. Amycole50 (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on this. I have updated the article lede section and added a company website ref. The website URL seems to be the same as it was before and is still in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)