Talk:Boeing 747/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

n-dash "not a typo"?

The article is full of "not a typo" templates, for what I think refers to the use of the n-dash, in e.g. 747–300, as opposed to 747-300. The usage is not consistent across the article, and it's the first time I've seen the n-dash being used. For example Flight International uses the normal dash, as does Boeing.com, example here. When was the consensus reached and why? zmm (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The "not a typo" is used to prevent bots from changing normal dashes to ndashes. The common dash is the right format for the designation; these are not number ranges where is a ndash should be used. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Great thanks. I've changed the n-dashes to just dashes. zmm (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Having a template obfuscating the wikitext for human readers is proof the bots are reaching too far.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's possible, I think two names for the same template would do the trick. For example {{dash bot stay away}} :-) But this is probably not the place for such suggestion. zmm (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Swiss -300 order date: another source needed?

The article lists June 11, 1980 as the order date under the 747-300 section, based on a primary source. But based on a secondary source (Bowman, 2000), quote:

"Swissair's interest at the drawing-board stage in July that year was the driving force behind Boeing's deision to go ahead with production of the new -300 series." [Bold mine]

Making that date the launch, but not the first order. There's no reason I think for Bowman to make up the July date. It would be great if this can be verified using another secondary source, and the 747-300 section updated, to match the "Improved 747 versions" section where I added the launch date. zmm (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That first June 1980 order may have been converted to the -300 later like maybe that July. Boeing first offered the 747-200B with the SUD option in June 20, 1980. Swiss ordered the 4x 747-200B(SUD) which were later re-designated 747-300 per p. 59 of the Jenkins book (ISBN 1-58007-026-4) that I have. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

SUD claim

This was an interesting exercise. The claim I recently corrected (the SUD being offered before the -300) wad added back in 2008. The claim is made based on this webpage, where the claim doesn't exist (but I can see how it can be an honest mistake). Then the reading improvements took place in 2012.

So 12 years that error persisted. What I think is interesting is the reason. I've made another edit to that section just now, explaining how the JAL -100s with SUD were brand-new (the production was still running alongside the -300), and added an example of an actual retrofit to an existing fleet, with the year for context (also added another page reference). zmm (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

End of production

Someone should close the chapter on this aviation jumbo giant: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-747/end-of-the-runway-for-747-jumbo-as-boeing-placed-final-part-orders-idUSKBN2442O8 86.180.169.19 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)anon

According to that source, Boeing has not confirmed that production is ending, and production will continue through at least 2022. No changes need to be made to article at this time. We're certainly not going to state that production will end in 2020, as several users have tried to claim in the article. - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Put an image of a freighter in the section for the -200?

There isn't an image of a 747 classic freighter on the whole page, and considering that most of them ended up as freighters, we should put one in the section for the-200.

Something like this.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabst blue ribbon led zeppelin (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

A simpler picture with a clean sky background should be preferable, as shown in commons:Boeing_747#Boeing_747-200--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Boeing 747 rollout (3).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2020

Gazmills14 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Under Operators section.

The final 2 BA 747s took off G-CIVY & G-CIVB departed from 27R one destined for Kemble, near Cirencester, while the other headed for The airfield at RAF St Athan near Cardiff. Both 747 models took off in foul weather shortly after 8.30am on Thursday.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

No need to add. This is already covered at the bottom of the Development section (see "Further developments and end of production" subsection). -Fnlayson (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

There are considerable layout issues and MOS:SANDWICHing caused by too many images; some could be moved, some could be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There are also several bare urls, half of "Aircraft on display" is unsourced, and several of the bullet points in "Government, military, and other variants" are unsourced. Also several stubby sentences in "Other uses". RetiredDuke (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Cites provided for most of the uncited data in the "Government, military, and other variants" section.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Entries that I couldn't cite in "Aircraft on Display" removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Qantas 747 became the first airline in the ??? to have an all 747 fleet

Mistake on the page, I think the missing word is "world" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.152.180 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

If you wanted to request access for a specific change, please specify what edit you would like to be made.

I want to add links 174.69.255.107 (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You'll need to be more specific about your request. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Currently your page has "On September 30, 1968, the first 747 was rolled out of the custom-built Everett Plant, the largest building in the world by volume" I want to add a link so it has "On September 30, 1968, the first 747 was rolled out of the custom-built Everett Plant, the largest building in the world by volume." But for some reason the page is locked so I must request the edit, now can I make the edit or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.255.107 (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Request done. However, unless you have an WP:Autoconfirmed account you will not be able to edit the page as it is protected due to vandalism and it will expire until July. You can, either, list the changes you want to make like the one above or create an account, perform 10 edits and wait 4 days to get it autoconfirmed and perform them by yourself until then. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Typical seats in 747-8

Chaosdruid: "Citation needed" is the wrong tag here. That tag is for when there is no source. "Failed verification" would be wrong too, that's for when there is a source but it contradicts what's in the article. If you've got another source that gives a different number, you could cite that source, and put something like "410 or 467" in the table. What you can't do is simply add maintenance tags to the text when there is no problem. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The citation provided in the cells above the seat number, as far as I can see, says 515 ... that's on page 8 of the document, and page 14 of the pdf.
I am requesting a cite for that specific number, 467, as it is NOT supported by the ref provided --- so it IS the correct tl
So the only one cited gives a figure of 515, NOT 467, and the website said 410 ... unless you can see it somewhere else, in which case it still needs amending.
Fnlayson provides an interesting document, it's just NOT the one cited.
We need verifiable data Chaosdruid (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not true, see ref# 287 (747-8 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning report) in the specs table now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at page 13 of the cited source, which is page 19 of the pdf. It says 467. I don't know what you mean by "the website" so I can't comment on that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Boeing 747-206b.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

747SR production number errors

The article currently says the following about the 747SR variants: "The -100SR entered service with JAL, the type's sole customer, on October 7, 1973.... Seven -100SRs were built between 1973 and 1975...."

"Following the -100SR, Boeing produced the -100BSR, a 747SR variant with increased takeoff weight capability. Debuting in 1978...a related standard -100B model debuted in 1979. The -100BSR first flew on November 3, 1978, with first delivery to All Nippon Airways (ANA) on December 21, 1978. A total of 20 -100BSRs were produced for ANA and JAL."

"In 1986, two -100BSR SUD models, featuring the stretched upper deck (SUD) of the -300, were produced for JAL.... While only two -100BSR SUDs were produced, in theory, standard -100Bs can be modified to the SUD certification."

That's incorrect. The SR (it's generally not called the -100SR) was built for both JAL (7, as the 747SR-46) and ANA (17, as the 747SR-81). The 747SR-100B was only produced for JAL, who ordered only three (3, as the 747-146B SR), plus the two (2) 747SR-146B SUD models. This can be confirmed with two different sources. First, Planespotters lists the 747-100 product line with the model numbers I just described.[1]

Second, and absolutely authoritative, is the 747's Type Certificate, as issued by the United States Federal Aviation Administration. This is the document that permits Boeing to operate the 747 in its home country's airspace. It is so specific that it lists individual airplanes' serial numbers for each aircraft sub-type. It states the following:[2]

'V. 747SR (Approved September 26,1973) Transport Aircraft'

Model / Eligible Serial Numbers [pg. 6]

747SR-46 / 20781-20784 [4], 20923, 21032, 21033 [7 total]

747SR-81 / 21604-21606 [3], 21922-21925 [4], 22291-22294 [4], 22594, 22595, 22709-22712 [4] [17 total]

'VII. 747-100B (Approved August 1, 1979) Transport Aircraft'

Model / Eligible Serial Numbers [pg. 7]

747-146B / 22066, 22067, 23150 [3 total, although it does not name them specifically as 747-146B SR]

'IX. 747-100B SUD (Approved March 24, 1986) Transport Aircraft'

Model / Eligible Serial Numbers [pg. 8]

747-146B SUD / 23390, 23637 [2 total, although it does not name them specifically as 747-146B SR]

So, the SR section needs some rewriting. Sacxpert (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead section

The most recent edit to this article is to add a sentence at the end of the lead section which compares the number of deaths on this model with the number of people flown on it. I think at least the bolding is unnecessary and doesn't go with the style of the wiki. Bolding is reserved for specific circumstances, not just to add emphasis to a point (Per MOS:NOBOLD). Patr2016 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been fixed. Patr2016 (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)