Talk:Boeing 747

CC-177

Is CC-177 bigger/wider/heavier than a 747 ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is probably not the best place to ask general questions but you could just compare the specifications in each article to get an answer. MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just look at the technical specs on the one aircraft, the technical specs on this one (they've both got a section with that information listed), and then you'll have your answer. I just did it, took less time than it took to tap out this reponse. Kyteto (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Stacked containers?

"This meant that it would be possible to support a 2-wide 2-high stack of [8-foot] containers..."

The 747 was never expected to carry containers stacked two high, was it? Tim Zukas (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

New York to Tehran?

"The Tehran–New York route when launched was the longest non-stop commercial flight in the world."

Did they actually launch it? If they did, was it before Pan Am's NY-Tokyo nonstop? Tim Zukas (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Turns out Iran Air was flying JFK-THR nonstop (eastward only) in summer 1976; PA's JFK-TYO nonstop started in April-- so no conclusion yet. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Absence of alt text

I've been opening up Featured Articles lately, and see if they include alternative text for their media. I'm disappointed that this article barely has an alt text. Roughly 30 of the images are missing alt text and I've done some editing regarding the matter yesterday (AEST). Can someone who is expert at writing alt text please come and fix this up. Cheers --Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 09:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the nominator of this article for FA status needs to visit WP:ACCESSIBILITY.

Alt text definitely needs to be added. However having alt text in captions is not a hard requirement for FA status per Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I added alternate text for two images, but removed "alt =" from all of the others since the captions were no longer visable. It is important to make this article accessible to the visually impared. However, providing alternate text is not as critical when the images already have descriptive captions. Alternate text should not simply parrot captions, but should provide a visual sense of the image.--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The alt text is absolutely unnecessary, not required for reviews, and in most cases, is vacuous and obvious, and detracts from the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

I strongly disagree with alt text is absolutely unnecessary – that's because you're not visually impaired, are you? Alt text are there out of consideration for disabled readers, see WP:ALT. Furthermore, Featured Articles represent the best of Wikipedia's works; e.i they should be close to perfect. Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 01:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• How does alt text actually detract from the article? The text does not show up in normal viewing. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Alt text is helpful for sight-impaired people who access Wikipedia via text readers. It's meant to be 'obvious' as it describes images for people who can't see them. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is much of the alt text is either duplicates of the captions - which isn't really helpful , or rediculously verbous as in: "|alt=Inside Boeing's cavernous Everett Factory, where airplane sections are readied for mating with other major components. Above are the cranes which ferry heavy and outsize parts of the 747" - which is absurdly OTT and arguably NPOV - and doesn't do the job that alt text should do - ie descibe the image in context for screen readers.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that alt text is useful for vision-impaired users, a modicum of attention to the writing must be present. FWiW, the original argument was that it was necessary for feature articles which is not the case, but an acceptance that it is useful if properly worded for the user who needs it. When I said that it detracts from the article, I was strictly speaking of the writing style involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

Origin of the term: "Jumbo Jet"

Despite the "informal" appropriation of the term, "Jumbo Jet" was a creation of the Boeing marketing division on the launch of the B.747, see: Company history and the first popular use of the term, Popular Science and definitively, Robert J. Serling's account of the development of the 747 Legend & Legacy: The Story of Boeing and its People (1992), p. 293. The derivation of the term from a marketing exercise to a commonly-used term approximates that of the earlier "Jetliner" terminology which actually was the official name of the Avro C.102 Jetliner but like many other words/terms in transition, was purloined to attach to all jet airliners of the period, although the terminology is now arcane. The Boeing Company actually tried out a number of descriptive terms before settling on "Jumbo Jet", see: Douglas Ingells' 1970 747: Story of the Boeing Super Jet which constantly refers to the 747 as the "Super Jet". Regardless, "jumbo jet" is a PR person's god-send as it is now used for every and any aircraft, despite its original origins. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC).

That is exactly what I have said. I think the sentence, as it was running, was misleading. The words "...its original nickname..." (instead of "the nickname") You have found, now, should clarify the true situation. It is also a good idea to let my "Clarify" request in the source code, for a while. The discussion on the article Jumbo jet shows that there are quite a lot of people who could be confused, otherwise. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the term "Jumbo Jet" is linked to the Boeing 747, any other use of "jumbo jet" is a derivation and as indicated above, a misappropriation of a marketing label. It's like saying "Scotch tape" which was originally a 3M trademarked name, that is now slapped onto any adhesive tape. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

How one may ever interpret it, the current formulation ("often referred to by its original nickname, Jumbo Jet") should satisfy any demands, both that of the party asserting Jumbo Jet was a misappropriated marketing label and that of the party saying it wasn`t. There is clearly stated that Jumbo Jet is the original nickname, and through the use of the adjective original, it is also clear that it, in the meanwhile, has got necessary to mention that. A good example of a neutral formulation. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We are now dancing on the head of a pin; I am satisfied that the subtle change qualifies the use of the term and the note you have left in the edit text can remain with a "pointer" to this discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

Reference link updates

Hi all, the following are updates for the recently tagged expired links:

52
http://web.archive.org/web/20090331202213/http://www.janes.com/transport/news/jawa/jawa001031_n_1.shtml

54
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1997/06/11/3750/jumbo-challenge.html

65
Davis, R.E.G. (1990). Delta - An Airline and Its Aircraft: The Illustrated History of a Major U.S. Airline and the People Who Made It. Paladwr Press, p. 96.

72 (same ref as 120)
http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sample_articles/sample_articles/owners_guide.pdf

113
Norris & Wagner, p. 71

120 (same ref as 72)
http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sample_articles/sample_articles/owners_guide.pdf

131
<ref name=plan/>; also Jenkins, p. 97

144
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q1/nr_040107h.html

149/152
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1080

155
http://web.archive.org/web/20090410042129/http://flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRHeft06/FRH0601/FR0601f.htm

179
http://web.archive.org/web/20090410050853/http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frheft/FRH0205/FR0205c.htm

186
http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/boeing-747-121

191
http://www.jumbostay.com/DynPage.aspx?id=73030&mn1=5293&mn2=5301

193
http://web.archive.org/web/20080224015351/http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Drag/Page4.html

Best, SynergyStar (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Cutaway

I made the cutaway, please use it in articles you guys see fit. You are welcome though. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Iran742.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Iran742.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yellowstone

"The 747 is to be replaced by the Boeing Y3 (part of the Boeing Yellowstone Project) in the future." The reference is for a 2007 article. Is it out of date? I doubt whether Boeing would consider updating the 747 after the 8i and 8f for another 15 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.115.12.144 (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The text in this article just says "is to be replaced by the Boeing Y3 ... in the future". So I don't see where you get the 15 years part. This is a longterm thing, and even longer term after the -8 model. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

New infobox picture?

I tried editing the page, but forgot to check through teh talk first. The 747-8I is the most recent version of the Boeing 747, and due to the fact the British Airways 747-400 picture has been the infobox pic for over two years now, I say we freshen up the page with the 747-8I picture. Ift can bee seen on the previous revisions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_747&oldid=464139057 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan7W (talk • contribs) 13:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose change - The 747-8 is not typical of the 747 family and the current image is a far better representation of the type, this is an encyclopedia and we dont have any requirements to "freshen up the page". MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

747-200 on display at the Top Gear track

There is a 747-200 on display at Dunsfold Aerodrome. It is frequently seen on the BBC motoring show Top Gear. Would this be sufficiently notable for inclusion in the Aircraft on display section? I was just about to add a paragraph about this, but figured I'd probably ask on this talk page first. -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

For starters it needs a reference. I can not find mention of aircraft on display on Dunsfold Aerodrome's site (dunsfoldpark.com). -Fnlayson (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That I agree with; the article on Dunsfold Aerodrome lacks such references. However, the plane can be clearly seen on many Top Gear episodes (and is occasionally mentioned on the show), but that probably doesn't count as a reliable source.
-- Skysmurf  (Talk) 00:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Found refs in Flight International and the Dunsfold Newsletter for this aircraft; added and linked to G-BDXJ article. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 05:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

SIA 747 tribute site

SIA has a B747 tribute site http://www.siajourneys.com/ WhisperToMe (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

not really relevant, did you have a point or question? MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)