Talk:Helicopter banner

a

Advertisement
This article reads like an advertisement for the "HOBS helicopter banner towing system" to me, so much so, that it makes me wonder that if that aspect of the article were removed entirely, there would be anything left at all. What irritates me somewhat, is that the article appears to me to be conflating the concepts of utilizing helicopters as a tow aircraft for aerial advertsing in general, and the HOBS towing system, it can easily be read as if the two are one and the same in this article, which of course they are not. In my opinion, if this article is to be saved, it'll have to be seriously cut back and the "HOBS system" aspect should be properly contextualized, in the form of a simple mention along with other aircraft advertisement towing systems, rather than appear like it's the subject of the article itself. Thoughts?

Deconstructhis 05:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I came to the talk page because I was surprised that text that is so obviously written by someone with an interest in HOBS should appear on Wikipedia. So this entry is simply to say 'I agree with Deconstructhis'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.39.26 (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Diagrams
I have to admit that I'm still a little dubious about the two "diagrams", in terms of whether or not they constitute advertising. Despite the fact they're claimed to be in the public domain, they both contain what appears to me to be the HOBS logo on their lower right corner. If that was the Coca-Cola logo and the topic of a given diagram was an explanation of a generic aspect of the soft drink bottling industry, I doubt it would be allowed. Deconstructhis 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, as I mentioned above, I think a much stronger argument can be made for the removal of the two "technical" diagrams, both obviously contain the corporate logo of the HOBS corporation and despite claims that they were "created" by an individual editor, I don't see any waiver for their use by HOBS. In my mind that is a violation of copyright. Deconstructhis 00:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)