Contents

Talk:European Space Research Organisation

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

Europe: ESA Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by ESA task force (assessed as Top-importance). Spaceflight Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Source of the article text

[edit]

Quite a bit of the text for this article seems similar to the text of this document published by the ESA. Although works of NASA are in the public domain, this may not be true of ESA documents. Wikipedia:Copyright violations, which is policy, states that: "All text added to Wikipedia" must be "compatible with the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." Is this text released by the author or copyright holder under terms compatible with the GFDL? (sdsds - talk) 23:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the ESA PR division about the specific copyright of the document in question. Generally though, anything on the ESA website is free to use for educational or informational purposes. I'm not sure what that means in terms of GFDL but in the event that this text is not in compliance with GFDL, all that needs to be done is a quick copy-edit.U5K0 (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one more thing... I'd like your opinion on weather this article will be left to stand because I want to expand a lot of the articles around ESA in a similar manner. Thank you.U5K0 (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One technique we might want to employ here is finding a diverse set of sources (i.e. not just histories published on the ESA website) from which we can draw our material. Bluntly, if an assertion can be equally well sourced from two different documents, inclusion of the assertion is not easily construable as a violation of either source's copyright. For example, does it make sense to use this NASA document? (sdsds - talk) 22:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is definitely a good source for this article. I'll try to expand it in the cumming days. What do you think about these sources:

• 1
• 2...this one isn't much, but it has some useful info

U5K0 (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very nice image source for this article. The owner of the website says that the images are free. U5K0 (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the name should be "European Space Research Organisation", not "Organization". If you look at the founding documents they use "organisation" - see http://download.esa.int/docs/ECSL/ESRO-Convention-EN.pdf Bandanamerchant (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually check the file but I take your word for it. Not that you need it, but you absolutely have my permission to make the change. Nice catch BTW. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 20:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've changed it. Ordinarily I don't think the British vs American spelling thing is very important, but in this case it's probably worth changing because it's the name. It's also the French spelling of the word. Bandanamerchant (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Bannier Report section, we have this sentence: "Only two years after the formation of ESRO, problems with its structure became painfully obvious. By mid-1966 it had climbed to 50%, placing enormous pressure on the operational programme." What climbed to 50%, and 50% of what? Drmab (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]