Talk:Boeing 737 MAX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Max 9 and 10 confirm 757 cancellation blunder[edit]

The 737-900 and now max10 announcement confirm the blunder of cancelling the 757, which was more capable, and rode better in turbulence. Dmp717200 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages are not forums for discussing the topic, or your opinions on the topic. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

They could be for proposing an addition ... so one addition could be 737max vs 757 as implied by Dmp717200 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I try to be flexible, and assume that discussion could lead toward article improvements, unless it is especially obvious that it won't. Comparisons with the 757 and 737-900, with WP:RS, would seem applicable. Gah4 (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Since when do I have to justify proper English usage in an article?[edit]

Phrasal adjectives (also called compound adjectives) are hyphenated. When a number of words together modify or describe a noun [in this case "fuel"], the phrase is ordinarily hyphenated. If two or more consecutive words make sense only when understood together as an adjective modifying a noun, hyphenate those words.

Therefor, hyphenate two or more words when they come before a noun they modify and act as a single idea, as in these phrases (in boldface): "The 41:1 overall pressure ratio, increased from 28:1 and advanced hot-section materials enabling higher operating temperatures permit a 15% reduction in thrust-specific fuel consumption (TSFC) along 20% lower carbon emissions, 50% lower nitrogen-oxide emissions, but each weighs 849 lb (385 kg) more at 6,129 lb (2,780 kg).[22]"; and in, "The smaller Leap-1B engine will weigh less and have a lower frontal area but a lower bypass ratio leading to a higher thrust-specific fuel consumption than the 78 in (200 cm) Leap-1A of the A320neo.[citation needed]"

I think this settles the matter; please revert your reversion!

Someone else can fix the link, preferably the author of the article. Autodidact1 (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Industry terms don't always follow grammar rules. Please provide reliable published sources showing the usage of the term "thrust specific fuel consumption" with a hyphen. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I think Autodidact1's point is that the default should be normal grammar. It's the industry-specific deviation that should require a source. (talk)
  • No, the industry wording is used in the published sources such as from Flight, Aviation Week and the like. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

BUT the problem is that without hyphenation, there is no clue as to what "specific" applies to. But there doesn't seem to be a reason to use jargon .. its strongly implied that the fuel flow rate is what determines thrust.. (which is fuel per unit time, not mileage which is fuel per unit distance.) (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Another crash[edit]

Like with Lion Air last year, a Boeing 737 800 MAX used by Ethiopian Airlines has crashed, killing over 150 people. Leo1pard (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you read the article? it is already mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Why are there so many problems with this aircraft model's airspeed indicators? (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Not really relevant to this talk page as this page is for article improvement, you could try a forum like pprune or similar as this is an encyclopedia not a forum. MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please explain lead edit[edit]

Fnlayson, please explain your lead edit to disregard flight system under scrutiny for both crashes:

The MAX 8 has been involved in two crashes[1] in which there were no survivors. In both incidents, the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) of the aircraft is particularly under scrutiny for faultiness. The Federal Aviation Administration of the United States issued an emergency order[2] concerning the system, which details a scenario in which erroneous flight data from the angle of attack sensors could cause the nose to pitch down and initiate an unrecoverable stall, especially at lower altitudes. The emergency operation directive included giving the flight crew horizontal stabilizer trim procedures to neutralize any similar scenario.

You said it lacked sourcing and it is out of place, but yet if you view pages for the DC10, or 787, for example, you will see information such as this in the lead. Also, sourcing is there for the claims and no certainty of the MCAS was stated. Thank you.

Reverted edit until further discussion is had by users. I contest the MCAS should be mentioned in the lead paragraphs. I would also attest to the fact that the two crashes should be detailed further in the lead as in the 787 battery troubles and DC10 cargo door problems in their respective Wikipedia pages (as an example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curivity (talkcontribs) 23:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits are being reverted. What does the community think? Should we put MCAS issues in the lead paragraphs?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Curivity (talkcontribs) 23:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Gregg, Aaron. "Ethiopian Airlines crash is the second fatal incident to involve a Boeing 737 MAX 8". The Washington Post. The Washington Post. Retrieved 10 March 2019.
  2. ^ HEMMERDINGER, JON. "FAA issues emergency 737 Max airworthiness order". FlightGlobal. Reed Business Information. Retrieved 10 March 2019.
What you added in the lead is too detailed for a summary. The Lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article and not introduce new information (see MOS:LEAD for more). Also, the text starting at "concerning the system" is not clearly cited since it follows the references. I moved this text and refs to Accidents section and shortened/reworded. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Fnlayson Yes, I understand. I wasn't presenting new information in the lead as the MCAS issues have already been introduced and described in the body. I maintain we should describe the specific faults in the lead as we learn more information.

737-9 incident in Houston 3/10/19[edit]

I was on this flight - UA1168 left engine caught fire in flight - airplane made emergency landing at Houston (original destination). Everyone evacuated safely to the tarmac. Kmajmudar (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a minor incident and therefore not notable; "I was on this flight" is WP:OR; there does seem to be a report at [1] but I can't access it (probably due to poor GDPR compliance by small US news sites) to read the details. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
That plane was a 737-900, not a 737 MAX 9. --Ahecht (TALK
) 17:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at FlightAware, news reports, and FlightRadar24, it appears that Ahecht is correct and that flight was a 737-900ER, not a 737 MAX 9. Specifically, according to FlightRadar24, it was N38443, which confirms is a 737-900ER, not a MAX 9. At any rate, Rosbif73 is also correct that that incident doesn't meet Wiki's notability standards. Vbscript2 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Strikethrough for operators that have suspended flights[edit]

I don't remember having seen this usage before, and it seems unnecessary here. Suspension of operations is no doubt temporary; it is briefly described in the Accidents and incidents section, and the full list of airlines that have suspended operations is given on the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in any case. Thoughts, anyone? Rosbif73 (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't either. Some editors seem to be going to extremes here. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I have recently removed a large table of "grounded" airlines from the accident article, it has been reverted. MilborneOne (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the operators section, it has just been added to make a point, a sub-article for orders and delivieries was sufficient last week. MilborneOne (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Fuzheado | Talk 18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAXBoeing 737 MaxMOS:TM / MOS:ALLCAPS. I count about 35 sources that are cited in the article that have "Max" in their titles (with mixed case). That is a large number. I see no indication that the all-caps "MAX" is anything other than a promotional styling. The company's self-published material follows the all-caps, but we should pay more attention to independent sources. Wikipedia guidelines say to use ordinary English styling in such a situation where the sources are mixed. (I note that there was some prior discussion of this issue in 2012, although not a formal RM discussion, which is archived in Talk:Boeing 737 MAX/Archive 1#Boeing 737 Max or Boeing 737 MAX?.) —BarrelProof (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - "737 MAX" is the company's aircraft designation, not a name as such, therefore it is exempt from the guidelines. The company has every right to call an aircraft what it choses, and that is "737 MAX". - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@BilCat: according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office,[2] it is a trademark registered by Boeing for use on aircraft, so we need to comply with Wikipedia policy for article names containing trademarks for this. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) states "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name". 737 MAX with "MAX" being all caps is the proper name as that's how Boeing named it. We should keep with the proper name. funplussmart (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Both of the above comments seem like some variation of just saying "it's official!" Is there something more to it than that? Also, the WP:NCCAPS remark about capitalizing proper names is only about capitalizing the first letter of a word, not about using all-caps, and also I believe this isn't strictly a proper name since there are hundreds of these airplanes – please see the "Corvette" example in the Proper noun article. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
There are also hundreds of thousands of Corvettes. Also, if "Boeing 737 MAX" is substituted for "Chevrolet Corvette", that paragraph would read the same. So I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning that. Also, if this article is retitled, then there are several other aircraft and military articles that would have to be retitled, including the Airbus A320neo page (to Airbus A320 Neo). (Note that Airbus A320 NEO would be allowed, as it is an acronym, if these guidelines applied to designations, had Airbus chosen that style.) Oddly, no one has ever proposed changing the A320neo article's title. Curious. - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
See also Airbus A330neo. - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
You asked what is my point in mentioning the Corvette example. It is that that the proper noun article notes that "Corvette (referring to a car produced by the company Chevrolet) is not a proper name" and "Similarly, Chevrolet Corvette is not a proper name." And "Boeing 737 MAX" is also not a proper name. So the boldfaced guidance above about what to do with a proper name is irrelevant to this discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I figured out why. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This is referring to capitalising the first letter. There would be no other reason for it to start from the "second word". It is not referring to all caps. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support per the nomination and further supported by WP:TITLETM and MOS:TMSTYLE, and exemplified in Mini (marque), an article about the car that BMW call "MINI". "MAX" may be the way Boeing choose to stylise the name, but normal English, as evidenced in a multitude of secondary references, is to write "Max". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support Advertising copywriters write "MAX"; journalists write "Max". We're writing an encyclopedia here, not trying to sell airplanes. TypoBoy (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Not necessarily, a google search will show news sources do not unanimously use "Max", many do capitalize all the letters. funplussmart (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
You're right that some sources write "Max" and others write "MAX". The relevant Wikipedia policy here is WP:TITLETM, and it says we should follow standard practice (that is, "Max") "unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". Your observation therefore supports the move. TypoBoy (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (agreed): Reputable aviation press such as Flight Global use "Max" and "Max 8", a recent example is here. zmm (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Per WP:TITLETM, stylized titles are typically noted in the lede, whilst the title of the article remains as it is expected by the convention. Thus, there should be a sentence that goes something like Boeing 737 Max, often styled as Boeing 737 MAX, ... etc.BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 06:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose That some journalists don't get the name correct isn't a good argument for making it incorrect here, too, in my opinion. Mainstream news coverage of aviation is of notoriously poor quality. The correct name, per Boeing, is Boeing 737 MAX. News sources that are more reputable in aviation matters typically use the correct name with the capitalization. For example, Aviation Week's tag page for the Boeing 737 MAX uses the capitalization, as do most of their article titles that you can see listed there. Even well-known frequent flyer blogs like View from the Wing, One Mile at a Time, and The Points Guy correctly use the all-caps. While I apparently can't link those here, you can do a Google site search on their domains to confirm. Vbscript2 (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Vbscript2: but Wiki policy for article titles at WP:TITLETM explicitly says Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation. We are bound by that. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems that it is demonstrably the most common usage among sources that actually know what they're talking about. The usage of all upper-case seems relatively consistent among sources that are reputable in aviation-related matters. AvHerald is another example. Like I said before, some reporters who aren't very knowledgeable of aviation getting it wrong seems like a rather poor justification for making it incorrect here, too. I would also disagree about being 'bound' by WP:TITLETM. There's also WP:IGNORE to consider. Though, in this case, I think keeping the all caps does follow at least the spirit of the "demonstrably the most common usage" language in WP:TITLETM. Vbscript2 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Also of note, the US Federal Aviation Administration, the UK Civil Aviation Authority, the Air Line Pilots Association, and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association all use "MAX", not "Max." The usage seems mostly consistent among sources that are actually reputable in aviation matters. Vbscript2 (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The manufacturer refers to this model as 737 MAX.[3] We are required to use WP:COMMONNAME. WWGB (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@WWGB: there are no plans to change the name, so it will still comply with WP:COMMONNAME. The change proposed is to write it using standard English capitalisation per WP:TITLETM, another part of the naming policy which we are required to use. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Uppercase MAX definitely is common usage, though admittedly not universal among reliable sources. In any case WP:TITLETM is inconsistently applied (e.g. we let easyJet get away with their camelcase styling despite relatively common usage to the contrary), and WP:IGNORE tells us that improving Wikipedia should take priority over individual rules. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Multiple reliable independent sources, like Reuters, Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal use the all-caps MAX form. Eilidhmax (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia guidelines, the question isn't whether you can find some independent sources that use the all-caps styling. It is whether there are independent sources that don't. Actually, the article in The Wall Street Journal that is cited in this article uses "Max". So do the cited articles of BBC and The Guardian (plus the 35 that have it in their headlines). —BarrelProof (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The question is not whether there are some that do or some that don't, it is whether the trademarked usage is demonstrably the most common (per WP:TITLETM, though that is not the only applicable guideline). Rosbif73 (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose I was focusing on MOS:TM, which is phrased a bit differently: "examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent reliable sources. ... Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one". I think the 35+ identified sources are sufficient to demonstrate widespread use. (The degree of independence of the sources is also important, of course.) —BarrelProof (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
That specific analogy would be relevant only if this article would refer to the frequent spelling as Max somewhere in the first few lines (like the A-10 article does). Since it does not, the analogy is at best flawed. Arnoutf (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rogerd: the proposal isn't to change the designation though, the only change proposed is to write it in standard English - to conform with the Wikipedia article naming policy at WP:TITLETM. There is nothing though to stop us qualifying it at the top of the article, to explain how Boeing stylise it per MOS:TMSTYLE. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I stand by my original argument, that the manufacturer's designation should be used. --rogerd (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rogerd: given that, according to move request closing instructions: Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions, Which of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines or naming conventions are you relying on to support your "original argument"? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The all uppercase usage is the common usage on many sites as demonstrated by others here. --rogerd (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose as per the last discussion we had on this earlier when it was confirmed from sources close to Boeing that MAX is not an acronym or a captialisation of Max just a Boeing marketing name. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you supply a link to that previous discussion please. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Look on this talk page's archive page. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
This item from 2012 then, I guess. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
MilborneOne the argument there in 2012 assumes that the requirement to use standard English is only a MOS guideline, and so can be ignored. Now, in 2019, WP:TITLETM is official Wikipedia policy, and trumps MOS guidelines and project conventions, so really needs to be complied with I think, regardless of how we characterise the nature of Boeing's use of the word. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly a stylisation. Move to standardised form per MOSTM - Estoy Aquí (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Unless MAX is an initialism for something, regular mixed case should be used. Trivialist (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think that it the way Boeing using it as a trademark. It just how we know it as. However, I agree with some of the "support" comments. But I want to oppose it for now. GCunknown (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is the registered trademarked name. It is the name also on all regulatory certifications, licenses etc. --Bohbye (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:NCCAPS, proper names are exceptions for non-capitalizing in article titles. MAX is a proper name here, so correctly capitalized, even if other sources use inconsistent capitalization. Brandmeistertalk 15:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Brandmeister: I think you've misunderstood WP:NCCAPS. It means just the first letter of words that are proper names, not all the letters. Like Supermarine Spitfire is not Supermarine SPITFIRE. That means, as it's the proper name of an aeroplane model, we can call this article Boeing 737 Max (but not Boeing 737 MAX) and we don't have to follow the normal rule of no caps - as with Airbus A320 family where "family" isn't part of the proper name, for example. Please reconsider your declaration. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
My bad, but as per others. Multiple official documents follow Boeing's own capitalization, like FAA's Airworthiness Notification, EASA's type-certificate data sheet, ICAO's Boeing Product Update etc. Brandmeistertalk 16:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@DeFacto: Then why don't we rename COBOL to Cobol or AstroTurf to Astro Turf or Astro turf? --rogerd (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
We use the common capitalizations of those because they're the common ones. For terms that are sometimes, but not always, capitalized funny, we use standard capitalization, even if the vendor has a non-standard one. @DeFacto is pointing out (correctly) that a lot of the people who weighed in above seem to think that the rule is "spell it however the vendor does" That's not the rule. TypoBoy (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rogerd: COBOL is an acronym, so is correctly written in all capitals, and isn't a trademark anyway, so WP:TITLETM policy doesn't apply. AstroTurf is correct per WP:TITLETM, as neither word is written fully capitalised (AstroTURF or ASTROTurf would be wrong). -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Even though some writers in journalism are writing it as Max, Boeing officially writes it as MAX. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The default according to WP:TITLETM is “Max”. Boeing’s trademark is “MAX”. Unless the trademark “MAX” is the most common in sources other than Boeing, the default “Max” should be used. I reviewed recent news stories that involve this airplane, and about 2/3 of sources called it “Max”. “MAX” isn’t demonstrated to be the most common usage, so the article should be titled with “Max”. I support the move. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A number of press outlets use "Max", WP:TITLETM is pretty clear on this. Boeing has said the spelling is a marketing style not an acronym. The only real reason to keep is because that's what Boeing wants it to be called and that's not a very strong one. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose On Boeing's actual site it says Boeing 737 MAX SchoolBusesC2 (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with that DeFacto. May as well Support the merger and renaming of the page. GCunknown (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@GCunknown: I guess you need to strike out your oppose entry above - made at 03:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC) - then, if you have changed your mind. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Per WP:TITLETM: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". This, or the lack thereof must be demonstrated by those arguing for one choice or the other. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 02:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Optakeover: you are misunderstanding the policy. There is no spelling change in the proposal - that will remain exactly as it is now - the only change proposed is to the way the word "max" is capitalised per the requirement "Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)" of the stated policy. That in this case means changing "Boeing 737 MAX" to "Boeing 737 Max" - no spelling change. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@DeFacto: You're misunderstanding me. I didn't even think or suggested there was a spelling change. We are talking about capitalization? Yes. My point of my !vote is the community must demonstrate which form is most predominantly-used by the media, either mixed-case or upper-case. It is in the exact quote of the policy I mentioned. After doing my research there is no media consensus on what form of case to use, hence my !neutral. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 02:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 737 MAX is the official name of the product, given to the product by its manufacturer. We should stick to that official name. Kestreltail (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support WP:OFFICIALNAME we do not use official names just because they are official. WP:MOSCAPS/WP:MOSTM uses sentence case when a word is artistically capitalized, when it is not an acronym/initialism/abbreviation. WP:AT use sentence case for naming articles, not title case. -- (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 737 MAX is the official name, the trademarked name, the name used by a decent number of reliable sources (no hard numbers, just an observation from a scan of the first few page of Google News on the topic), and the name used by official aviation regulation agencies (i.e. the FAA). --HunterM267 talk 07:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose 737 MAX is the official name and is used in all official statements I've seen. Omega13a (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as per OFFICIAL and COMMONNAME, 737 MAX is the official name. –Davey2010Talk 13:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe the time has come to consider WP:TITLECHANGES: "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." I do not see consensus forming. (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment with respect to the comments made by Kestreltail, HunterM267, Omega13a and Davey2010 about the current name being the "official name", "trademark" or "common name". That is true, but there is nothing in the proposal that will change that, so those points are moot. The only change being proposed is to change the capitalisation of the word "max" from "MAX" to "Max", to comply with the the WP:TITLETM policy, and there nothing in WP:COMMONNAME or WP:Official name insisting that capitalisation is copied. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Hunterm267: a courtesy ping for you as I got your capitalisation wrong above and the ping failed! -- DeFacto (talk). 16:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Problem is that MAX is a trade name and not a capitalisation of Max so to present it as "Max" is clearly wrong. Probably a case of common sense overrides the alphabet soup. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
^This, MAX is the offical and commonname, Max isn't - It may seem pedantic that I'm choosing MAX over Max however they use the former as does sources. –Davey2010Talk 16:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:TITLETM doesn't apply here since plenty of official independent sources (FAA, CAA, ALPA, AOPA) and journalistic sources (AP, WSJ, etc.) use all caps, as pointed out by Vbscript2 and Eilidhmax. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 17:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ahecht: WP:TITLETM doesn't give any exceptions that allow for all caps to be used, other than as a possible means of disambiguation, so as it's a Wikipedia policy (not simply a MOS guideline) then it's reasonable to expect it to be enforced here. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:TITLETM allows for non-standard capitalization when it is used by independent reliable sources. --Ahecht (TALK
) 01:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ahecht: there's nothing in WP:TITLETM sanctioning the use of all caps, even if it is used by all independent reliable sources. That exception only applies to spellings. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and a comment. It seems like the height of collective Wikipedia hubris to ignore the proper naming of a product because of an arbitrary policy. (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support MAX and Max are used in the media, so I would go with Wikipedia policy and go with 'Max' for consistency. MAX is clearly marketing-speak, even if Boeing uses it officially. Alaney2k (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support by above. Ythlev (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. GEORGIANGo Dogs 04:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:TITLETM. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL do not apply as this is not about what we are calling it (i.e. the name) but about how said name is styled, i.e. do we ape marketing and render "Max" in all caps? Which we do not... unless a preponderance of independent sources do. Which they do not. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Disagree in regards to a preponderance of independent sources not using it. The FAA, UK CAA, AOPA, ALPA, Aviation Week, AvHerald, major travel blogs like TPG, OMAAT, VFTW, major airlines that operate the type, such as Southwest, United, Norwegian, Air Canada, and American, and several major news organizations all use the correct "MAX" capitalization. Vbscript2 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Joeyconnick and Vbscript2: there's nothing in WP:TITLETM sanctioning the use of all caps, even if the preponderance of RSs do do it. That exception only applies to spellings. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support because it looks better and major newspapers such as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times use Boeing 737 Max[1][2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ The 737 Max Is Grounded, New York Times, March 13, 2019, Retrieved: March 15, 2019.
  2. ^ E.U. Suspends Boeing 737 Max 8 New York Times, March 12, 2019, Retrieved: March 15, 2019.
  3. ^ Sist of countries banning Boeing 737 Max 8 grows after Ethiopia crash Los Angeles Times, March 12, 2019, Retrieved: March 15, 2019.
"Looks better" is not a particularly encyclopedic reason, just because journos cant get it right is not a reason to repeat it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Same reason as many others, 737 MAX is the official name and is used in all official statements. It's their name they can capitalize it however they want. We can't arbitraily change it.Tgalos90 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the move appears contrary to the article naming policy that applies, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). At the time of writing there have been some 38 votes and umpteen references to assorted general policies but even though it's clearly linked from the article naming overview policy it seems to have been missed and this seems to be the first mention. Unfortunate, particularly for closing counting. The naming policy and examples seem clear as to designation being the actual designation and "Name: This should be the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military". while many seem to dislike the name, there seems to be agreement that the official name is MAX, not Max. Per the relevant article naming policy, MAX appears to be the correct form to use. Hence I vote against this proposal to move this article away from the current name, noting that almost all support for the move has been from people apparently believing they were advocating following naming policy. I've also raised the matter over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft with a request for comments on this and additional naming examples on the policy page. Deferring until they have had time to act then following any clarifications which emerge may be best. Jamesday (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose name is whatever Boeing has registered it as. That may be ungrammatical, undesirable, or even inconsistently unused, but that's what, for better or worse, they have stuck us with. See OFFICIAL and COMMONNAME. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose see The manufacturer uses ‘MAX’ therefore the official name of the product uses ‘MAX’. East Anglian Regional (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Let me quote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft): "Name: This should be the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military." The "official name given by the manufacturer" is "Boeing 737 MAX". Ergo, the correct title of this article is, and cannot legitimately be anything other than, "Boeing 737 MAX". Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 03:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Exceptions to Wikipedia:Article titles exist when the name of the aircraft has all caps. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 17:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose MAX is the official designation from Boeing, this is just how their product is called. This is not a case of style for promotion but a set name and following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) is the correct way to do it. Just because some journalist (of reliable sources) make the mistake of writing it as "max" or "Max" doesn't mean that is the correct way. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly, WP:NCAIR says to use the designation from the Type Certificate Data Sheet, and the TCDS for the 737 just calls it the 737-8 and the 737-9, leaving out either "MAX" or "Max". --Ahecht (TALK
) 20:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose MAX is the official designation not only by Boeing, but by the aviation authorities who govern the aircraft's operations, thus I agree with the above opposing editors. The official sources on the subject are not the media, but the aforementioned aviation authorities including the CAA, CAAC, EASA, FAA, and KOCA etc., who issue operating certifications (using the MAX designation) and certify/control the aircraft's operations. Many of the authors of the "reliable sources" covering the 737 MAX are breaking/trending news producers, columnists, senior writers, associate editors, etc., which means they are journalists, not aviation experts. According to All caps, "Studies have been conducted on the readability and legibility of all caps text. Scientific testing from the 20th century onwards has generally indicated that all caps text is less legible and readable than lower-case text." This may be why journalists incorrectly write "Max" instead of using the officially designated name, "MAX." Because the aircraft is certified as the Boeing 737 MAX it would be improper for a Wikipedia page to use another name, therefore I oppose an article name change. Thanks. Aeroplanepics0112 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral I've read enough of this to realize that it doesn't matter that much.Technophant (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary (intermediate?)[edit]

Congratulations Wikipedia editors! In less than a week, enough electronic symbols were exchanged on this important matter (should ax be capitalised in AX?) to make the bitcoin farms in China pale with envy! Right now there are two camps :

  • seasoned aviation editors, supporting a MAX like Boeing, regulators and aviation media write;
  • new to the subject editors, supporting a Max like general media write.

Right now I count similar forces in both camps. (52 oppose, 40 support)

Honestly it does not matter so much. Both are OK. The Boeing stylisation is a bit ugly, but it's its plane. The general media writing may replace it as the most common name but it will never be the certification name.

What is ugly, is the banner on top of the article and this too long, sterile discussion.

Aviation editors: let it be. Maybe we'll redo this discussion when things will be tamed.

New editors: let it be. Aviation editors will stay after you anyway.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

As an outside editor I support this summary. There's clearly no consensus right now for a move, it might be better to revisit the topic when the 737 world has calmed down a bit... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Total 737 Max's Delivered[edit]

The article currently says "350" delivered but adding up the past several years deliveries in the chart equals 320. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpasmore (talkcontribs) 15:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in lede to describe what role the plane is designed for and markets it is designed to serve[edit]

I've just come to the article and read the lede expecting to learn what role the plane was designed for (short range, medium range, long range; budget airlines, full service airlines; high efficiency etc) but did not find it. Nor did I find it when I scanned the rest of the article. I'd suggest this information should figure fairly prominently in the article. Oska (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s designed to make potential air passengers fearful of flying. Boscaswell talk 04:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Template added by (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD is a summary of the article sections. I t states [it] is a narrow-body aircraft (the narrwobody already define it as a single aisle airliner, as opposed to widebody, long range aircraft or short-range commuters) and [...] four variants, typically offering 138 to 230 seats and a 3,215 to 3,825 nmi (5,954 to 7,084 km) range for performance details. Airline usage is linked to the airline business model, not to the aircraft type; low-cost carriers or traditional airlines use 737s or A320s with no obvious bias.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


While editors are edit warring over giving Trump credit for everything we can add the FAA announcement actually grounds all the MAXs in the whole world not just US. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The article now says that Trump announced the FCC ..., where my understanding (from radio news) is that Trump ordered the grounding. That may or may not be important. Gah4 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


"Following these crashes, Boeing and the FAA recommended the plane be grounded worldwide."

What kind of bootlicker thought it would be a good idea to put the FAA prominently in this sentence, the one agency who was last behind the grounding? (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes we should get this right, and it sounds like it might need fixing. Though we won't know who is right, until more details come out. Gah4 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The FAA was the original certifying authority for the 737 MAX. --Ahecht (TALK
) 17:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Worldwide grounding section factual error[edit]

The FAA were not the last regulatory authority to ground it. According to the BBC "On Thursday, Russia, Japan and Tunisia banned the jet from their airspace. Late on Wednesday, the FAA told the country's airlines to ground their fleets, but was criticised for not doing it sooner." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Technically once the FAA "ground" the aircraft then they are all grounded worldwide as they approve the master type certificate. For the pedantic around MAXs are still flying today but without passengers. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
User:MilborneOne do you have a source supporting that claim? Bohbye (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Bohbye sorry about that I misread something so I withdraw the remark. MilborneOne (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
User:MilborneOne I was not questioning the rationale of what you said, it actually makes perfect sense, but I’m looking for a source and not just original research. Bohbye (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Understood, original research indicates that the type certificate has not been touched as some MAXs are still allowed to fly (without passengers). Some aircraft in Europe have also been ferrying about to return to home bases since the "grounding". MilborneOne (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi~ The 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings article is here to stay (voted against deletion) and has sufficiently expanded with details. Let's shorten the summary section under the link to the article. Shencypeter (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


Added some text about Boeing "self-certifying", which has been widely discussed in the press around the two accidents. It is the subject of investigations and may conceivably be a root cause of the accidents. As such I think that it is of interest. I realize that it may be seen as important not to have this on the page as it does not promote U.S. industry. However, wikipedia needs also to maintain credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

No one here is going to see something as not important because it does not promote U.S. industry (see WP:NPOV and WP:AGF), and the investigation should certainly be mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure that it should go in the lead section. --Ahecht (TALK
) 15:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There are several sources, at this point mostly reputable news outlets, CNN, WSJ, etc., that report acceleration of the certification for commercial reasons in relation to competition from Airbus. I think that this should be mentioned. We are not here to serve Boeing, although many of us are aviation enthusiasts, who recognize Boeing's importance. In the long run, if confirmed, a flawed certification process is an important subject in relation to this aircraft type. It may reasonably suggest other safety problems. I think it is of interest to readers. However, this has been removed from the current page. Would someone please add it back in wikipedia style? I am not enough of an expert on wikipedia to know how to do it in a way that does not get it immediately removed by an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That information is already in the article in the Flight testing section: During the certification process, the FAA delegated many evaluations to Boeing, allowing the manufacturer to review their own product. As of March 17, 2019, the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Inspector General and federal prosecutors at the Justice Department were investigating the FAA's safety review process for the Boeing 737 MAX series. It is also in the top section of 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings. --Ahecht (TALK
) 16:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Ahecht, Thank you. However, what is still missing is the context in several of the sources, i.e. that this accelerated certification process was driven at least in part by a desire to compete with Airbus, especially in relation to the 320neo. For example the source states "In 2015, Boeing reportedly pushed to expedite the 737 MAX’s approval in order to compete with the comparable Airbus A320neo, which had hit the market nine months ahead of Boeing’s newest 737 model. Several FAA employees told the Seattle Times that their managers asked them to hurry up the process, and hand over more work to Boeing. “There was constant pressure to reevaluate our initial decisions,” said one former FAA safety engineer. “Review was rushed to reach certain certification dates.”" with similar information in many other sources. Is there a way to include a sentence to this effect somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)