Talk:Boeing 737/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

B737 vs A318 to A321

The deliveries section shows the A320 (318-321 I suppose) has slowly overtaken the B737 since 1988. There's no explanation for this, and one is needed. Possibilities are: 1. lower purchase price per pax, 2. lower op costs, 3. more configurations, 4. shorter delivery times, 5. better leasing and buy-back deals. 1 is lowest, and 5 is most likely. Some researcher should be able to answer this definitively.220.240.251.52 (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Really something for Competition between Airbus and Boeing to deal with. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is arguably be more appropriate for such a graph to be in the article MilborneOne referenced, as it's more of a comparison and contrast. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Good Article

See Talk:Boeing 737/GA2 for latest Good Article assessment.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Boeing 737. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131201000000/http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/prices/ to http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/prices/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016201845/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3126/is_669_58/ai_n28992671/pg_2/?tag=content%3Bcol1 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3126/is_669_58/ai_n28992671/pg_2/?tag=content%3Bcol1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016201845/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3126/is_650_56/ai_n28827184/pg_4/?tag=content%3Bcol1 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3126/is_650_56/ai_n28827184/pg_4/?tag=content%3Bcol1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2003/01/07/159906/737-and-cessna-404-in-collision-over-namibia.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/6MH4A2uSW?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftempsreel.nouvelobs.com%2Fmonde%2F20030306.OBS7827%2Ftamanrasset-102-morts-dont-6-francais.html%3Fxtmc%3DalgA_rienne_aps&xtcr=25
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-23-peru-crash_x.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing 737. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904131052/http://swamedia.com/releases/Southwest-Airlines-Retires-Last-of-Founding-Aircraft-Employees-Help-Celebrate-the-Boeing-737-200-s-Final-Flight?mode=print to http://swamedia.com/releases/Southwest-Airlines-Retires-Last-of-Founding-Aircraft-Employees-Help-Celebrate-the-Boeing-737-200-s-Final-Flight?mode=print

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox picture

Hi all, what do you all think of updating the infobox image with one of the options below? Here are several suggested photos. The first suggested photo is of another WN 737-700, with a very similar angle, but much, much higher resolution (you can see inside the main landing gear bay, inside the windows; details on the engines, etc.). The second suggested photo is of an AB 737-700 in hybrid livery, similar angle, and similar resolution as the current pic, but as with the other suggestion, it is brighter overall, there is good contrast with a cleaner background, details are visible, etc.

• 
  Current photo
• 
  Proposal 1 - new livery
• 
  Proposal 2 - AB 737

Other photos with the same WN livery and again a 737-700. Similar resolution, but brighter, and a simpler background. Proposals 3 and 4 are quite comparable.

• 
  Proposal 3 - sharp but not high res
• 
  Proposal 4 - bright
• 
  Proposal 5 - 3/4ths view

Or perhaps people have other suggestions? Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Choices 1 through 4 are all fine for the Infobox, and 5 is OK. --Finlayson (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Agreed, #5 is perhaps not as good. #1 is the highest res although it has giant titles. #s 1, 3, and 4 could use the existing caption. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps #4 would be good. Very similar to current photo, but brighter, with a slightly cleaner background. It is pretty easy to make out key features and details of the aircraft. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I like #5 it is more than a side view --rogerd (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment! Yes, #5 is more of an angled view which differs from most of the rest. Here's one more which has a slight angle to it, very high res -- you can see the imperfections in the tail paint ! --, nicely composed IMO. Maybe the best yet (although not more than a side view). Thanks SynergyStar (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• 
  Proposal 6 - high-res
• 
  Proposal 7 - B738 with split scimitar

Proposal for 737 Original photo

A -100/-200 original would be more adapted here, as the Classic, NG and MAX have their own pages. Perhaps the maiden flight pic :--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• File:Boeing 737-100 (N73700) on its maiden flight.jpg

Thanks for the suggestion! Yes, a photo of the first 737 is historically significant. And in fact several years ago (e.g., 2013) the article had such a photo [1]. Although it had been uploaded to Wiki under accepted copyright terms, Boeing disputed, took offense and demanded the photo be deleted from Wikipedia [2]. File:Boeing 737-100 (N73700) on its maiden flight.jpg, which is claimed "no copyright restrictions" comes from the Boeing.com website and if posted in the infobox may be subject to the same takedown complaints.

That's a shame. So, is is public domain or not?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I suspect, based on the prior case where a similar air-to-air shot was taken down, that it is not public domain either (but as per DCMA practice, until a complaint is made it remains on wiki). Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

So it would be better if another photo of the first 737 were available. Alternatively, if we are to try and get a -100/-200 photo in there, we might find another one from wiki or elsewhere. Challenge though is such photos are much older and less high-res. Here's an example that's pretty clean, albeit not high-res:

• 
  Westjet 732

What about that one? Regards SynergyStar (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

High res doesn't mean high quality (and i made a bit of my living on photography). Anything over thumb size is good enough, but it's pleasant when clicking the thumbnail is clearer. Other suggestions :

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

IMO, main pics are better from 3/4 view to better show the configuration. I like the last AeroSvit photo : clean config, dynamic picture, bright light and neat blue sky.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Great points! Yes, it's not just the number of pixels. And a 3/4 view was endorsed by rogerd as well above. I agree, it shows the configuration better. Thanks for posting all those options! I like the AeroSvit photo too, albeit the landing gear is not visible and it could be brightened a bit (perhaps a modified version could be made). It is very clear and crisp -- plus the photo is nicely detailed. Perhaps we could try that one... Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not bad, but I think I like the South African Airlink better, but maybe it's just me. --rogerd (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That one can work IMO. As a plus it shows landing gear. Here's a brightened version of it. Does anyone else have any comments? Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• 
  Aerosvit 732
• 
  Airlink 732
• 
  Westjet 732

Here's a brighter version of that pic. How does that look? Regards SynergyStar (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Now suggested pics are side by side, and I'm having a hard time deciding which would be better. Landing gear are visible in the Airlink and WestJet pictures; the AeroSvit picture is a rare high res and detailed 732 pic. I also like the WestJet one because it's very clear albeit not a 3/4 view. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The SA airlink is nice too.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, it appears we have a winner! The photo will be updated shortly. At this time, it makes sense to have a B731/732 pic here, and Classic, NG, and MAX photos for the respective articles. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Move list of hull losses and incidents to its own page?

The list at Boeing_737#Accidents_and_incidents seems fairly comprehensive, as are the lists at Boeing_737_Classic#Accidents_and_incidents and Boeing_737_Next_Generation#Accidents_and_incidents. Would it make sense to move the list in this article (and possibly all three lists) into Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737 family (currently a redirect)? If so, then a detailed prose section could be put in place, in summary style, in the aircraft articles; readers could click to read the lists. Maybe that has been proposed before?

As I recall, sometimes new editors will add an entry to this article's listing, and not realize the distinction between Original/Classic/NG. Perhaps moving that list to its own dedicated page would help. Thoughts? SynergyStar (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Support the creation of List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737, might be worth looking at List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 707 for an idea of format. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Support also, and to cover all 737 models. This should probably include military variants such as the Boeing T-43. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've placed section split / section merge tags on this main article and the two sub-articles, with links to this discussion in case anyone else wants to comment before action is taken. Thanks SynergyStar (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

 Move complete on Boeing 737, Boeing 737 Classic, and Boeing 737 Next Generation Thanks for the input, SynergyStar (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Eyebrow windows

I reverted the claim that the "eyebrow windows" were supposed to be used for "navigating by the stars". I found several explanations by pilots who explained that those windows would have been pretty much useless in using a sextant, and were for visibility only.

So tried to find published sources supporting one point or the other. Sources directly relating to Boeing (including the book cited in the section) simply state the windows were for "visibility" without mentioning star navigation at all. One claimed "navigating by the stars", without specifying were that information came from. The article that I cited, refuting the claim, does quote a specific Boeing engineer involved in the program, so I'd say that it is the most reliable source I found.

The claim about navigating by stars has been inserted as "Trivia" in 2006, and remained unsourced ever since. However, I *did* find several places where Wikipedia was used as an authoritative source on the matter... Averell (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional trivia: Apparently the 707 and early 747 models did enable celestial navigation. This was done through a navigation port/window on top of the cockpit, not the eyebrow windows. Averell (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hyphen / minus sign

Re: [3][4]

@Fnlayson: I get your rationale, I think. A bot sees a hyphen between two numbers and assumes it's a range, so it converts the hyphen to endash. (That doesn't explain why the bot would change, e.g., -700 to endash, although it might change it to minus sign.)

And the solution is to use one wrong thing (minus sign) to prevent a different wrong thing (endash), when the two wrong things are almost identical in appearance? (hyphen, minus sign, and endash follow in that order: - − –)

I think a better solution would be to identify the most practical way to prevent that bot action, and I know there must be more than one way. Pinging MilborneOne, who stated in the 747-400 discussion: "Hyphens have always been used in aircraft designations." ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

On second look, you didn't change any of the hyphens between two numbers, so I don't get your rationale after all. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the bots are seeing what looks like a number range (or something that looks wrong) and changing the minus to a ndash per the MOS. Another user changed them to a minus in another article (Boeing 747 or 777) instead to prevent the bot changes; I did the same to the non-number range ones, e.g. -400 for now (these seem to be corrected more often). Another way to handle this is with the {{Not a typo}} template. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrapping each and every occurrence in a template would not be what I call "practical", although I would do it if there were no other way. For starters I'd like to know what bot is doing this, and exactly what MOS guideline it's using. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Orders and deliveries errors

I am concerned that there are errors in the current Orders and Deliveries section, which states that the 737 is 'the most commonly flown' airliner. This has not been true for some time. The section was revised to correct this but has twice been reverted to the incorrect version on the grounds of OW and WP:SYNTHESIS (User:Marc Lacoste may wish to comment here).

The current, incorrect, section reads:

• As of 2006, there were an average of 1,250 Boeing 737s airborne at any given time, with two either departing or landing somewhere every five seconds.

The 737 was the most widely ordered airliner until October 2019, and is the most commonly flown aircraft.

The reverted correction is thoroughly referenced and read as follows:

• The 737 had the highest annual orders of any airliner until 2016, and the largest number still operational (6,512 in 2016) until surpassed by the Airbus A320 in 2017 (6,965 in 2017) .
  

References

The numbers provided and the references are all taken from the table Commercial airliners still in operation in Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#Orders_and_deliveries, which sets out the numbers still flying per year based on the cited, annual Flightglobal data. I do not believe that there is any OW involved in either the correction or the Competition table. If there were, then much of the O&D tables would be inadmissable.

The line As of 2006, there were an average of 1,250 Boeing 737s airborne at any given time,... because, although true in those days, is a meaningless observation on the B737 or any other airliner in 2020 and misleading if taken as typical numbers for today.

I propose that the correction be reinstated. However, if people see an issue that prevents this, then to delete the current entry because it conflicts with the Competition article, which is very well supported. Feel free to edit the proposed correction. Your comment is invited. Ex nihil ^(talk) 15:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It is only one sentence and is directly related to most commonly flown aircraft text. (I moved the text to that paragraph since the info is related.) And this probably can be updated with a newer source if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It is easy to split the statements referenced for easier WP:verifiability. I've just done that. Note some are refs are inaccessible. For Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing, beware, Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources. But it doesn't allow to erase cited content. The ...2006... statement is historical and referenced. You can add a template:importance-inline if you want, but you shouldn't put all your modifications in 1 edit.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Confusing segment

The text says "The nacelles were mounted directly to the underside of the wings to allow the landing gear to be shortened, lowering the fuselage and enabling easier baggage and passenger access.[8] Mounting the engines on the wings also allowed the horizontal stabilizer to be attached to the rear fuselage rather than the tail fin." First, this ought to say "mounted directly to the underside of the wings as opposed to underneath the wings on pylons as in previous Boeing designs" to make it clear why this allows the gear to be shortened. On reading it the first thought is "but aren't most jetliners engines mounted under the wing?", especially since this follows the section talking about mounting the engines on the tail. As you can see from the second sentence, someone apparently wasn't paying close attention and assumed that this was what the sentence was talking about, since a T-tail is only required for tail-mounted jets. Being under wing or under wing on pylons makes no difference to whether the plane can have a horizontal tail. Being underwing instead of on the tail does. In fact, underwing engines such as the 737 would make it more difficult to have conventional stabilizer, since the thrust line is even higher than pylon mounted engines. The editor obvious assumed that the sentence was referring to moving the engines from the tail to the wings. This would explain the switch to a T-tail, but the shortened gear and easier access is only explained by the fact that they are directly under the wing.

Idumea47b (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You are right, Idumea47b. I made an attempt. Please improve it. Ex nihil ^(talk) 10:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Graphs don't match

Any reason why the two adjacent graphs showing 737 vs A320 deliveries per year don't seem to match? One shows a relatively steady climb with both staying in roughly the same ballpark, until Boeing dives after the grounding. The other shows the A320 being delivered at almost twice the rate and climbing over the last several years. I don't see any obvious explanation for this. Also, in the opening of the article is says that the 737 "retains the cockpit and cross-section of the 707", but later says it retained the cross section of the 727. Probably both are true and both 727 and 737 are based on the 707, but it makes readers wonder.

Idumea47b (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You are right Idumea47b, and I dont know the answers. Maybe you can delve into it and fix. Getting clear Boeing orders and deliveries is not easy these days, I tried to sort this but failed. Ex nihil ^(talk) 13:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The graphs do match, BUT one is 1985-2020 whereas the other is 1967-2018, and one shows each aircraft family relative to the axis whereas the other shows the two stacked and therefore appears to distort the rate for the A320. As to the cockpit and cross-section, yes, both are originally based on the 707, but I agree that the wording could be improved. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Restructure of article

This article is a remarkable mess considering how important it is. I suspect it's been neglected in favour of developing the pages for the four generational versions. I have 'tidied up' a few things in the last few edits but have come to an impasse because what it is crying out for is a complete restructure. It's an easy fix but it I think this needs discussion.The problem is this:

• The first half, under the concept of Development describes the four generational versions.
  
• The second half, under the heading of Variants, pretty much repeats everything in the first half.
  

I propose that one of them is redundant and has to go, and to do that by merging most of Variants into Development. Then, rename Variants 'Other variants' and leave the funnies, such as BBJ and military in there.
The article doesn't have to be long. It's almost a disambig that just takes people to the generational pages. It serves just to string them all together. What do people think? Meanwhile, it's ways off GA status. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable idea, I would just reduce variants down to a fairly simple list. MilborneOne (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Trimming the Variants and later section seems OK. Just remember that the 737-100 and -200 variants are only covered in this article; there's not a separate 737 original article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. More ==Development== (with template:main for the classic, NG and Max) and the -100, -200, BBJ and military versions in ==variants==--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

For better or worse, I'm done. It reads a lot better as an overview of the evolution of the 737 and it aggregates bits and pieces of the four generations into one place for each. Now that the bits are together, somebody might be able to tidy the sections up a bit. No information was either lost or added in doing this; all the deleted texts were duplications. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Is an IP trying to restore the previous structure?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if that was the aim, but the article does repeat the development history now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

We seem to have wandered back to towards the two parallel accounts of the generations that were generally considered to be unhelpful. I have kept the added information but have collated all the text on each generation into that generation. The stub of the duplicated account ended up making a good segue into the generations once they had been relocated. Personally, I think this, serendipitously, works quite well and it also makes sense of the Development section, which is now more complete in itself. It would be good if the IP editor could make an account and then could join in the discussion. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The aim was to put the "background and process" into 'Development' and the "results" of the development/upgrading into 'Variants (generations)' section or shortly said development section (why) and variants section (what). The previous structure did not have clear direction between the two sections (mess), IMHO.91.74.81.218 (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Further developments --> Upgrades

The short section 'Further developments' has been redeveloped into 'Upgrades'. This has created a redundant, parallel and slightly inconsistent second account of the development of the Original series through its four generations, which is already well described in the following sections. Consequently, I have reverted it. If there really is new material in the new Upgrades section, then it should be integrated into the relevent relevant generation. However, I see little or no new material being introduced, it's just a second account. The creation of 'Upgrades' takes the article back to an earlier time when there were also two competing sections: the first dealing with technical developments in isolation and the second dealing with the generations that incorporated these developments. The result was a fragmented account that was very hard to read and, inevitably, was forced to repeat itself. The pupose of the section 'Further developments' was simply to set out the structure of the evolution of the 737 and is probably complete as it was and now is again.. I do not wish to discourage, if you really have new information on the development, put it in, but in the relevant generation. Ex nihil ^(talk) 17:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually is not a redundant or parallel to the 'variants/generation' section as 'Upgrade' should continue the development history mentioned in 'Initial design' to 'Introduction' of the original 737 series. It should contain "major upgrades" involving re-engine and wing/fuselage stretch/enlarge as well as "minoor updates" involving minor aerodynamic or structural improvement such as winglets, additional tanks, gravel kits, etc. I was still not done as the "Upgrades" section just included the "major upgrades" description only, which i extracted from the 'variants/generation' section (I didn't create it but just a bit rephrase). Otherwise we have a discontinue development history of 737: portion about 737 Original in the 'Development' section and other portions embedded in the 'variants/generation' section which makes difficult for a reader whiteout background knowledge to figure out the development of B737 family that is more complex than A320 family concerning the number of upgrades and the nomenclature. Just take for example the A320 family article, which is qualified as a good one: the stretched version A321 is mentioned in 'Development' as well as in 'Variants' section with the different that in the 'Development' you will read the background story: "Its launch came on 24 November 1988 after commitments for 183 aircraft from 10 customers were secured." and "This came after a dispute between the French,who...and the Germans,..." but in the 'Variants' you will read only about the stretched fuselage, heavier, etc., i.e. straight to the point. Again, shortly said, 'Development' section should contain (why/how) and variants section (what) was developed.

Regarding the section name 'Upgrades' is a bit better than 'Further developments' concerning the content. 'Further developments' suggests that something developed into something other, e.g. DC-9 is further developed into MD-80 or 737 into FSA (replacement), whilst 'Upgrades' suggests that something developed into something which retains the same baseline. Furthermore, if we describe the four generations in the 'Further developments' would suggest that the 737 Original is developed in itself first as it is already described in the previous section 'Initial design'. 91.74.81.218 (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)