Talk:Boeing C-22

Specifications

The specifications (two different tables) didn't agree with each other in many respects. Using two other sources on the web, I've attempted to correct the left-most table. Why are there two specification tables anyway? It's a bit confusing. Itsfullofstars 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the confusion. The blue table is an old one that is no longer recommended for use by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft. The one on the left is the new format, which uses a template rather than a table. If you look [[1]], you will see what the page looked like before. I haven't had time to update the specs, but the ones on the right are correct; the ones on the left are from the DC-9, where I got copied the template. Again, sorry for the confusion. Oh, rember to sign your posts on the talk page using 4 ~ 's. - BillCJ 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Bad timing on my part. I happened on the page while you were still working on it. Sorry about the missing signature, by the way. I'm new to this wiki editing stuff, but learning.

No problem. And we were all new here once. If you're not sure of anything, it's always best to ask first. - BillCJ 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I am in two minds whether to propose a merge, as it seems that there is very little reason to have a separate article. All the relevant info could easily be in a section or just the variants section, particularly as they were virtually stock 727s with little modification.Discussion at Talk:Boeing 727#Merger proposal Petebutt (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impending delete proposal

This article is mostly a verbatim copy of [2], and if not merged with Boeing 727 is likely to be proposed for deletion.!!Petebutt (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to merge it then. —Comp dude¹²³ 18:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]