Talk:Aquila (TV series)

Could someone please translate properly the phrase 'Fly with the wings of an eagle' into Latin. It was printed (in Latin) on the space ship and read something like 'Subat Aterum Aquila Volat'.smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 08:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The current translation "Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat" seems to be incorrect Latin. "aquilae" a genitive form, seems more appropriate.--Joris Gillis 18:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Have changed the translation of the harness text to the original (and more correct) form shown in the pilot episode: "Any man can fly if he rides on the back of an eagle." 82.32.192.176 20:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Novel/TV Discrepancies

It's been a long time since I saw this show (great as it was) and I can't remember the detail of the ship's discovery - the article did list a discrepancy with the novel which I have tried to clear up but I'm not sure which version belongs to which - the main paragraph seems to refer to both... QmunkE 14:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Roman Spacecraft? Since when was it Roman? The excavation was Roman, but it was never suggested that the spaceship itself was. I seriously think that needs removing - will do so in seven days if no objections. TheIslander 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Text removed. TheIslander 22:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

dvd

Hi, anyone know where to find a series online?

- They are now on google video

Episode links

Do not add links to episodes here, they are potentially in violation of copyright, and not very encyclopaedic. --Darksun 15:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the BBC agreed to allow YouTube and Google video to store their videos online as long as they have the right to remove any they deem to be inappropriate? Meaning the BBC T.V. show Aquila is not in violation of copyright... As for it being "encyclopaedic", I would disagree as what is better than describing something than having a copy of the original? Besides, if Wikipedia showed the click-through rate of links, I have a feeling they are used quite a lot. This Wikipedia page (in my opinion) is the only real central webpage dedicated to the Aquila T.V. show. People have the right to be pointed in the right direction don't they? There are hundreds of people trying to find this old T.V. show and as the BBC decided to abandon it, don't you think its up to us to help keep it alive? -- 137.205.70.62 11:50, 15 May 2007

Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fan site or anything similar. If you want to make a fan site with these links, then there are plenty of free and commercial webhosts out there for you to do so. --Darksun 11:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked that link and didn't find anything about not being able to link to useful sources for more information. The Google links are not turning the article into a "personal web pages", "blog", "Social Networking", "File Storage" or "Dating service". What part of that article you linked states linking to another website turns an article into a "web space provider"?... This conversation is using more web space than the links on the main article. -- 137.205.70.62 11:50, 15 May 2007

I just really don't think it looks right having a dozen external links to video files, it'd be better to link to an external site linking to them, if at all. --Darksun 12:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And for a start, we don't need each link in the article twice. If they are going to be in, then they should be in the external links section and not in the main body. --Darksun 12:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, I'll remove the body links. -- 137.205.70.62 12:40, 15 May 2007

Episode links to a legit source should be allowed (such as BBC news video as a source on a current event - preferably from the original source such as bbc.co.uk rather than the youtube copy), it is out of the question to link to a copyright violation (such as video of an illegal distribution of anime like the ones on youtube). If the videos are relased under a free license or became public domain, they can be but to commons. -- Cat ^chi? 12:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the question of whether or not this is copyvio isn't all that clear. They are obviously not a legitmate/official release, but the BBC has said they "would not be hunting down all BBC-copyrighted clips already uploaded by YouTube members"[1]. However, this doesn't stop them being copyright violation, so what is to be done? --Darksun 12:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sit around and wait till the BBC make a decision as to whether they want to remove it from Google Video or not. As soon as they become dead links, remove them. -- 137.205.70.62 3:53, 15 May 2007

That's not really very good logic though. It'd be like saying the article on Windows Vista or any other software is fine having a link to download a warez copy, as long as the link is removed when it goes dead. --Darksun 16:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, As the policy is diffrent. A warez copy of Windows Vista is in direct copyright violation. The BBC stated that they wanted to retain the right to remove any content they feel is inapropriate. So untill the BBC decide that Aquila shouldn't be publicly available on the internet, then under their own words, there is nothing wrong with it being on Google Video. Where as Microsoft do nothing but remind us of how much they loath pirated copies of windows. I'm gonna have to get on with my revision now though, so I ask someone else to take up the defense for me... I know of hundreds of people who stand by me on this. :) -- 137.205.70.62 5:42, 15 May 2007

I find that if you really think that linking the episodes is relevent to the article, and is necessary, go ahead, put it, as long as it doesn't void copyrights. However, I don't think it is necessary to link to every single episode. Furthermore, if the reader wants to see the episode, he'll just Google it. No need to put the link in. --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 17:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, even if BBC did agree not to pursue people who violate the copyright, it looks dirty to have a copyright vio on Wikipedia. --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 17:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 137.205.70.62:

• Wikipedia articles should link to the closest source possible when at all possible. If this were a page regarding a speech by George w. Bush, we should link to the speech archive on www.whitehouse.gov .
• Wikipedia should NOT link to copyvio material. If there is a question in the legality of this stuff, let's pop an email off to the beeb and ask them! No need to debate what they say.
• It's much better to have the links to the videos here because all sites we link to should be respected, trustworthy sites. And what respected, trustworthy site would have those links? (www.tv-links.co.uk maybe? I don't know many others like that)(and I don't know any that are respected)

So in summary, if what 137.205.70.62 says is true and the beeb is ok with this show being on google video, then it should stay. --Ceas webmaster 17:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because the clips haven't been removed does not mean that they are not copyright infringements. Only when there is written evidence that the BBC have given explicit permission to Google to host episode 1x01 through to 2x06 will it cease to be a copyright violation. As links to copyrighted material wrongly uploaded are prohibited by Wikipedia policy, ("If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work."), I have removed the links. Besides, if others want to find these, they'll just google them and find them. _TheIslander 18:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How dare you just remove content without finishing an active discussion! Do some research before you start attacking articles on this site. It was in the news several months back that the BBC agreed on a partnership with YouTube and Google Video where by they allow them to freely show any BBC content as long as it is not used in a negative way (i.e. edited to have a damaging effect). In return the BBC use YouTube/Google Video to show any content it wishes (i.e. Previews/Episodes of their popular T.V. shows like TopGear and The Apprentice). In their own words, they have stated that anything uploaded onto YouTube/Google Video which is created by them is not infringing on copyright. They do however retain the right to remove any content they deem unfit for public viewing. So stop second guessing the BBC! Some of you obviously have a problem with being over zealous. -- 87.127.129.65 2:02 24th July 2007 (GMT)

Please see your talk page. I am not attacking articles on this site; I'll find admins to back me up if I really must. The links being added to this guide are copyrighted - until there is written evidence that the BBC gives direct permission to Google to show these videos, they're nothing more than copyright infringements, regardless of what was on the news recently (which, incidently, no one's linked to yet). All this aside, hypothetically assuming that the videos are legit, Wikipedia is not a place to dump loads of links. That makes two solid, undeniable reasons for those links not to be added. Before attacking anyone again, bear in mind that it'll only lead to a ban ;) _TheIslander 01:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok - everyone, please read WP:C and WP:EL to understand why it's dodgy to add (so many) references to Google Video which the BBC owns explicit copyrights to. Right now, there is no documented evidence to show that we are allowed to link to these and that the copyright on them indicates that. As the onus is upon the person adding the links to ensure that we are in compliance with this, the links must stay out. Before they go back in, please provide justfication plus written evidence to show that we are allowed to host these links. If the edit-warring resumes, the article will be protected from editing. Thanks - Alison ☺ 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Sorry if my response was personal, it was aimed at the general population who deemed it necessary to insist on removing relevant information from an article which I and many other people feel strongly for. You're evidence is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6411017.stm

"Mr Highfield said the BBC would not be hunting down all BBC-copyrighted clips already uploaded by YouTube members - although it would reserve the right for example to swap poor quality clips with the real thing, or to have content removed that infringed other people's copyright, like sport, or that had been edited or altered in a way that would damage the BBC's brand."

Now please stop be pointlessly up tight and just let the links stay. I think you'll find they have been used in the range of 10,000 times since they were first added. When ever they are removed, you can easily see the view count on the videos stops increasing.

"Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control?" (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/DICK). I'm simply trying to create a valuable resource for the hundreds of people who are searching for this much loved and lost t.v. show that aren't aware it is available on-line. I just feel there are people finding fault just for the sake of it, there has been nothing but excuse after excuse, its tiring having to defend against you all when there really is no need. -- 87.127.129.65 3:58 24th July 2007 (GMT)

Unfortunately, the link does not authorise the use of copyright material on GV and YT; on the contrary. It relates to an agreement where a very specific subset of videos will be licensed. Other than that, it shows the Beeb throwing up their collective hands in resignation. None of this, however, gives us permission to link to unauthorised copyvio material. Seriously, and adding the links, while it may be useful to some, is injurious to the encyclopedia. Like anyone else, I'm "here to contribute and make the project good", but as administrator I have to ensure that we stay within the rules and copyright violation is a biggie, even if it links to someone else's violation. And please, assume a little good faith on my part here; I don't appreciate the gratuitous WP:DICK reference. Trust me, I'm not "finding fault for the sake of it" - Alison ☺ 09:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Directly from the article: "The BBC's director of Future Media and Technology, Ashley Highfield, said the deal was "not about distributing content like full-length programmes; YouTube is a promotional vehicle for us"." - thus full episodes are not covered. Even if they were, to be included on Wikipedia they'd still need a precise liscence from the BBC allowing them to be on Google - no such thing exists. Anyway, feel free to ignore me, but ignore the admin above at your peril :P _TheIslander 09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Setting of the TV series

Before I edited it this article claimed that the TV series was set in Bristol. After looking through the episodes the name of the boy's school is given as Bernard Oliphaunt Middle School. As far as I know both Bristol and Derbyshire, where the novel is set, use the two-tier system of primary (with separate infant and junior schools in some parts) and secondary schools. In the novel the boys find Aquila on a school trip to the Peak District but in the TV series they are staying with their mothers on the land of a Welsh farmer called Evans and his wife. Then again, it might not be set in any real-life town or county with middle schools though it could have been filmed in the Bristol area. Tk420 (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)