This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
There are some meaningful contexts in the article when mentioning Airbus. Why should in not be relevant that the only producers of double deck jets stopped producing them almost in the same year? (because there was a deletion without explanation) Betternews (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is an overview article, and not every detail needs to be mentioned. And why mention an unsuccessful competitor with 15 years of production with a successful one of 50 years? Contrary to Airbus' own view, they aren't the most important company in the world. Neither is Boeing. BilCat (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have an apparent dislike for Airbus (“unsuccessful competitor”) and personal affection for Boeing (“successful”) which is not relevant to Wikipedia. Even if your personal assessments were true, it still won't change the fact (!) that the A380 and 747 are the largest and only double deck passenger aircraft flying, thereby always drawing an above average global attention and coverage. Both duopoly manufacturers now ending the production of these intensely covered largest (and only double deck) passenger aircraft in the world almost in the same year is an important and relevant global milestone for the industry and it ends any double deck passenger jet production on a worldwide scale.
So, this is not about “every detail” (in an "overview article" as you name it), quite the opposite, so maybe you will refrain from deleting this sourced Wikipedia content. Thank you.--Betternews (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I was referring to the 747 as successful, of which over 1500 were built in 50-year-period, vs. the A380, which had about 250 built in less than 15 years, and cost Airbus a lot of money. (Boeing's had plenty of turkeys itself of late, notably the 737 MAX, but the 747 as a whole wasn't one of them. Regardless, if you want to add it back, please cite a reliable, published source that's states it relevant, not just your own opinion. BilCat (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources show the context to the A380 when reporting about the end of the 747. The sources usually don’t state on a kind of meta level expressis verbis that “it is relevant” that they are mentioning both aircraft and their relationship in the same article. Seemingly apart from you, most people know about the market and competitive relationship between the Airbus and the Boeing Jumbo Jet. So I have no idea why you would think this being “just my own opinion” other than trying to be complicated.--Betternews (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence to the 747 phasing out paragraph, but as to my opinion this article needs an overall strong improvement (less detail but more context and structure), including the 747 paragraph. In an “overview article” like this one, why should it be relevant to report “Atlas Air” as the airline that got the last produced 747 instead of having a meaningful sentence at all about Boeing deciding and phasing out the 747.
But as long as the article is blocked with edit reverts and energy goes into discussions like the above one, the low article quality will probably stay.--Betternews (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
