Talk:Aérospatiale

Pronunciation guide for Aerospatiale?

Could someone add a pronunciation guide for Aerospatiale? I'd do it, but I'm not sure what the proper pronunciation is. Autonerd (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Autonerd

Fair use rationale for Image:Aérospatiale logo.png

Image:Aérospatiale logo.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was No merge by overwhelming consensus. -- BillCJ (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Proposal

Merge Sud-Est, Sud-Ouest, Sud Aviation, SNCAO and Nord Aviation into Aérospatiale.

Reason

According to Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information, a page of WikiProject Companies,

An article should be about a company and its predecessors, the names of which may have changed due to mergers, acquisitions, de-mergers, legal challenges, etc... The article should be primarily about the history of the surviving company, even though it may have assumed a predecessor's name.

Currently, all articles are stubs and the Sud companies contain duplicate historical information. All were state-owned organizations that were eventually merged. Conceivably, all the articles listed should be merged into EADS, but this move will be controversial enough. --Born2flie (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support. as nominator of merge. --Born2flie (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - Those are draft guidelines at Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information, not accepted guidelines. Anyway, aircraft companies are differnt than banks, with separate, though overlapping product lines. Sud-Est was created in 1937, and listing its early products on Aérospatiale would be very odd and out of place. (Granted, Sud-Est doesn't have a product list yet, but most of the other companies do.) All the articles could use improvement, but I don't beielve merging them all here is the answer. I will be posting a note at WT:AIR, as this draft guideline could have repurcusions for many aircraft company articles if they are passed. - BillCJ (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as per BillCJ each of the companies had a separate product lines and previous histories which need to be documented. Putting it all in one article will not encourage the stubs to be built on. Bit like putting most of UK aircraft industry under BAE Systems which is the successor for a lot of famous and historic aviation firms. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the draft guidelines and this particular merge proposal have some merits, over the long run I think it may create more problems. In the first place, it will make all such articles longer, and it would, no doubt unintentionally, disallow an overly long article to be recast into summary style by spinning off predecessor firms as separate articles. Contrariwise, if such spinning off is then re-permitted, it begs the question of having had the proposed guideline in the first place. Moreover, in the case of French aerospace industry reorganizations, they were not neat; a given company might be broken up and integrated into multiple existing or new companies, which begs the question of how to address the ancestor company (and its forbears) in particular. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can see the logic of the proposal, but these were quite distinct entities with different individual histories. I think that MilborneOne's BAE Systems comparison is a particularly apt one. There's an added complication, though, since each of the regional nationalised companies was in turn created by the merging of multiple private firms that the government absorbed. I think that preserving separate articles makes the story clearer. Sure the articles are pretty underdeveloped now, but the solution to that is to expand the articles, not to roll them into one. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Exactly what MilborneOne said. Could only see this working for very small 'un-notable' companies that became merged with a larger one. Nimbus (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Je ne suis pas d'accord car ce serait oblitérer l'existence de vieilles entreprises qui ont fait les débuts de l'aviation ! Elles ont leur propre histoire qui peut encore mériter des développement dans cette encyclopédie. De plus, sur le plan humain, les "anciens (retraités) d'une de ces entreprises gardent toujours des documents à leur en-tête (y compris le logo) : contrats d'embauche, feuilles de paie, etc. Et ils ne se reconnaissent pas forcément dans le nouveau nom. Je le dis pour Aerospatiale, société disparue en 2000, mais c'est aussi vrai pour son successeur EADS. Mais ce que je dis là, doit être vrai pour toutes les entreprises ayant subi des mutations, fusions, regroupements de tous les secteurs industriels (ou commerciaux).--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• In looking more thoroughly into these guidelines, I think more is being read into them than is meant – perhaps even the opposite of what is meant. I believe what the quoted portion is meant to convey is that an extant company’s article should briefly address any predecessor companies (as part of the story of how it came to be), but should chiefly focus on the modern company. I don’t see that it is calling for all predecessors’ articles to be folded into it. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the section the quoted guideline was taken from, it also mentions conglomerations where subsidiaries are well-developed divisions that function pretty much autonomously. Such conglomerations would realistically be a series of articles. Take for instance United Technologies and Textron, the parent companies of Sikorsky and Bell, respectively. Considering the lack of attention that each of the proposed articles has received as a whole, the merge proposal would serve to create one halfway decent article out of a handful of poorly organized stubs. In making this proposal I have not suggested any reservation against splitting them out again in the future should the coverage of one or more of the entities make the article unbalanced. At the most, each article seems to contain the date the company was founded, the companies it was merged from, and a spattering of accomplishments of either the company or its predecessors and/or a list of the aircraft produced by that company.

I understand the inertia of WP:AIR, but contrary to what appears to be the popular opinion, the presence of stubs does not promote continued growth of an article. Rather, such an article will continue to stagnate indefinitely. --Born2flie (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That may be true (and I don't have a serious problem with that in principle in this particular case), but that's not your stated rationale for the merge. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand the adverse reaction to merging a bunch of related stubs that will present better together than they do separately. Apparently, the sky must be falling somewhere. I've wasted enough time thinking about improving this group of articles. --Born2flie (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

aerospatiale without accent

Attention : à compter du 1 mars 1974, la société s'est appelée aerospatiale, avec un a minuscule et sans accent sur le e. Ne pas corriger intempestivement cette dénomination. --Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please use English per WP:SPEAKENGLISH, as you have in your edit summaries. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The poster has stated that since March 1, 1974, the company was renamed to use the lower case and exclude the accent over the e. Something like this would require a source to make such a sweeping change. I am looking for references now. Scr★pIron^IV 17:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That would also violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks which basically says that we use convention English capitalization for proper nouns, regardless of branding. - Ahunt (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have been unable to find anything official about the change. Even Aérospatiale has been inconsistent with usage over the past couple of decades; I have found examples on their archived website, including all caps with and without accent, single cap with and without accent and no caps with and without accent. Without a compelling argument for a change, it appears that we are being consistent across the project with the single cap as a proper name and retaining the accent. That's as good as we can do - be consistent, and in keeping with the MOS. Scr★pIron^IV 20:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for researching this, ScrapIron. - BilCat (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks says, if we can source any changes we can note them in the article as "styled as", but they should never be used in place of proper English use. - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, that is a logo. - BilCat (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the bowl is the logo. Under, is the name of the company found on every documents. Il know because I worked for 18 years in the company. Have a look on this encyclpedy aerospatiale Cannes--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The wordmark is still part of the logo. Please bear in mind that English WP uses the Common name or form in English as an article's title, not the official or legal name that a company prefers. I've seen several British publications use "Aerospatiale" (no accent), such as FlightGlobal, as does Encyclopædia Britannica, so there is some precedent for using the unaccented form, though proof would have to be provided to show that form is more common in English. Most printed sources I've seen use "Aérospatiale", and it's also quite common on the internet. - BilCat (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The lack of capitalization and the loss of the accent is just "styling". It can be mentioned in the lede, but should not be used throughout the article. - Ahunt (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"Aérospatiale" is an adjective in French: see "industrie aérospatiale". The company chose "aerospatiale" as name without accent to stand out from the adjective. Also, please, the editors of English Wikipedia, try to keep the french definition. Thank you--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, English WP uses the common form in English. It's not about respect or disrespect. It's just how EN.WP does things. - BilCat (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

editorial of tha Revue aerospatiale, special issue, March 1990, showing the right orthographe of the company

The real name without accent is created from official information, see the photo above. A significant number of secondary sources can be found in the press of the years 1970 to 1998--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Then you need to cite those English sources, and build a consensus to make these changes. There is no consensus to change it yet. - BilCat (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do NOT make cut-and-paste moves. If there is a consensus to move the article, then an administrator will move the page at that time. - BilCat (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Because "Aerospatiale" is found in some English-language sources, including Britannica, I've added it as an alternative title style in the Lead. - BilCat (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Good morning. About the company name as published in the Journal officiel de la République française please see fr:Discussion:Aerospatiale#Journal officiel. Regards. --T Cannes I You (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

(Belated comment) I assume that has to do with why the French WP article was moved to fr:Aérospatiale (société). (Note the accent and capital letter.) Hopefully that will end User:Kasos fr's crusade to move this article so that it matches the French version. - BilCat (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Model naming convention

I can't find any consistency in the model naming. In the list Aérospatiale#Helicopters all models are written with a space between the SA (for Sud Aviation) or AS (for Aérospatiale) and the model number. The articles however have names with space only for the SA-models (if the model number is included in the name at all) but not for the AS-models. French Wikipedia have better consistency writing all names without space. /Esquilo (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably because Aerospatiale were not that consistent in use, the current type certificates appear to use a space for all models both AS and SA so French Wikipedia may not have it right either. MilborneOne (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The type certificates are the authoritative source! - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Undid revision 734759199 by BilCat

Line breaks are very helpful to visually structure the markup code. So that editors may find where the real text is after oversized reference blocks. Have you noticed that a single line break does not show in the rendered text?
Your edit was no improvement. If you reverted my edit on the same grounds, please note that I changed the spelling of "Aérosopatiale" to "Aérospatiale".
Also please refrain from calling your edit an "undo", when you are clearly keeping the most important part of my edit.
--BjKa (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't generally separate lines like that on WP, nor are one-sentence paragraphs recommended. As to the rest, the software automatically adds in the "Undid" part, and I'm not going to worry about it changing it on a minor edit. - BilCat (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)