Talk:Jumbo jet

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 2015 October 16. The result of the discussion was keep.

Article Biased Towards Boeing?

Is this article Boeing slanted? It seems to focus primarily on tbe 747 ('Because the 747 was representative of so many "firsts" in so many cateio dont know dudegories, first "wide-body airliner," first to use the "twin-aisle concept," and the first airliner to use "quiet technology high bypass turbofan engines.') and mentions the other airline company as a side note. I'm hardly an expert in these matters, however, perhaps someone in the know can give us their opinion? --Feanix (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the term "Jumbo Jet" was first used to apply to the Boeing 747. It was a huge leap in the size of aircraft and being a jet that was so much larger it was called the "Jumbo Jet" to set it apart as being so much larger. I suppose the term could also apply to other large wide body aircraft like the 777 or 787, but I've always heard it as being used for the 747 or possibly large cargo aircraft like the C-5 or An-225. As for the A380, the term associated with it is "Super Jumbo" implying it is the next big step in jet size. I suppose you could question whether a "Super Jumbo" is a type of Jumbo or a seperate, next step. In that sense, I don't see how it would be considered biased toward Boeing. The 747 is the big jet. The A380 is the BIGGER jet.DrBuzz0 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little after the fact, nonetheless; despite the "informal" appropriation of the term, "Jumbo Jet" was a creation of the Boeing marketing division on the launch of the B.747, see: Company history and the first popular use of the term, Popular Science and definitively, Robert J. Serling's account of the development of the 747 Legend & Legacy: The Story of Boeing and its People (1992), p. 293. The derivation of the term from a marketing exercise to a commonly-used term approximates that of the earlier "Jetliner" terminology which actually was the official name of the Avro C.102 Jetliner but like many other words/terms in transition, was purloined to attach to all jet airliners of the period, although the terminology is now arcane. The Boeing Company actually tried out a number of descriptive terms before settling on "Jumbo Jet", see: Douglas Ingells' 1970 747: Story of the Boeing Super Jet which constantly refers to the 747 as the "Super Jet". Regardless, "jumbo jet" is a PR person's god-send as it is now used for every and any aircraft, despite its original origins. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wide body aircraft \ A380

Should wide body aircraft be included? I've never heard of anything other than a B747 been called a Jumbo Jet, and in fact a Google search will only bring up the B747. Even the A380 isn't normally called a Jumbo Jet, it's more often referred to as a Super Jumbo.Harvyk (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jetliner

"Because the 747 was representative of so many 'firsts' in so many categories, first 'wide-body airliner,' first to use the 'twin-aisle concept,' and the first airliner to use 'quiet technology high bypass turbofan engines," this particular aircraft is often and rightfully referred to as a jetliner for these among other reasons which follow."

Actually, the fact that it's jet-powered is the reason it's referred to as a jetliner. All the other reasons cited or alluded to are irrelevant. "Rightfully" is a bizarre work choice here, and the whole sentence has a stilted and strange grammatical structure. Maybe a re-write by a someone fluent in English who does not work for Boeing would we good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think the whole article needs to be rewritten. The name Jumbo Jet now days means B747. When the phrase was first coined it meant any large airliner. In fact to start off with Boeing hated the fact that the B747 was been referred to as a Jumbo Jet. As for the "firsts" section, this is meaningless under the name Jumbo Jet, it should be under the main B747 article.Harvyk (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spruce Goose

Wouldn't the Spruce Goose be a Jumbo Jet? It is HUGE! It is the biggest plane in wingspan, height, and largest flying boat ever. K50 Dude ROCKS!

No, it's not a jet.59.167.251.161 (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not 747. 82.181.76.172 (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Def'n

A jetliner with two passenger seating decks, one being twin-aisle the other single-aisle? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, when the term was coined, it was simply used to explain the size of the plane compared to others of the era. The name was attached to the B747 more because it was the only jet of that size, which was typically used for passanger service. I expect if you look into things you'd find that the name was coined more as a marketing exercise by the airlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.251.161 (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

smoke line seen on sky while jet plane fly high

why do jetplane leave smokeline while fly high on sky? pls mail me if anybody had answer (e-mail address removed)

Have a look at Contrail for your answer. We don't reply by email because then no one else can see the answer. I have removed your address because programs that hunt for addresses would have been pleased to find yours (in order to spam you!) - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A light pollutant?

Once a jumbo is landed, lights go on, and they look like a city in it's own capacity. Are there any pictures where a jumbo on it's own causes more light pollution than the island it lands on?--85.164.220.159 (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boeing 747

Jumbo Jet is not a category of plane, it is a nickname specific to the Boeing 747. Other wide-body planes have other nicknames, like "Super Jumbo" for the A380. I admit I have seen some limited usage of jumbo jet to refer to non-747 aircraft (some reports of the recent SFO Korean Air 777 crash called it a jumbo jet)... I imagine a certain number of them just looked it up on Wikipedia.

While I readily admit that some people may use the term to apply generically to all wide-bodies, you might as well redirect Xerox to photocopy if that's the direction we are going. As an attempt at proof by Wikipedia, I will note that only the Boeing 747 page actually uses the term Jumbo Jet to describe the plane, and no other wide-body plane I can find does so except in reference to the 747.

In fact, it is in the first sentence: "The Boeing 747 is a wide-body commercial airliner and cargo transport aircraft, often referred to by its original nickname, Jumbo Jet, or Queen of the Skies." The A380's much less well-known nickname is buried once deep in the article: "Dubbed the Superjumbo by the media[79]", along with the titles of many references.

But see how silly it would sound to say: "The Boeing 777 is a long-range wide-body twin-engine jet airliner manufactured by Boeing Commercial Airplanes, often referred to by its original nickname, Jumbo Jet". (By the way, the 777's nickname is Triple Seven.)

Please read the blurb Where did the nickname “Jumbo Jet” come from? at the Seattle Museum of Flight. Granted, the museum is in Boeing country, but I think they can be authoritative on this issue. According to them, it was originally coined by media as a derisive term... I leave it as an exercise to the reader to dig up newspaper clippings from the 1960s to find the first use of the term.

Marcinjeske (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, noticed an article specifically discussing the 747: "Ask any passenger at any airport in the world: “Can you recognize a Boeing 747?” Chances are, even casual flyers will say, “Yes.” With its unmistakable hump and graceful lines, the Jumbo Jet -- so famous it earned its own nickname -- has been a familiar sight around the globe since it first flew in 1969." and also "The Jumbo Jet is no match for a world of high oil prices and new, fuel-efficient airplanes..." at Boeing 747 On Deathwatch: How Boeing’s New 777X Will Kill Its Jumbo Jet Predecessor, Once The Queen Of The Skies at IBN. Marcinjeske (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcinjeske: Before I looked at Wikipedia's coverage of the topic, I would have assumed that "jumbo jet" was just a synonym for "wide-body jet". Are there any "Wide-body aircraft" that aren't jets? Ngrams indicates that the term "jumbo jet" is more common than "wide-body" jet or aircraft. Let's compare the first two wide-bodies. The 747 is called jumbo far more often than wide, or the DC-10 is called either.[1] But note that the DC-10 is called jumbo a bit more than wide too![2]. Maybe the 747 was "nicknamed" "Jumbo" around the time of its introduction, but I don't think it took that long–not long after the DC-10 and L-1011 came out—for jumbo to go generic. Just because the competitors were a bit smaller doesn't mean they still weren't jumbos. As to "...often referred to by its original nickname, Jumbo Jet, or Queen of the Skies." [3] B-17, Queen of the Skies Queen of Sky: Diary of a Dysfunctional Flight Attendant. Queens reign for a limited time. Jumbo just means really big, and queen, just means market-leading product. The "King of Beers" is an advertising slogan that's constantly reinforced by more ads. "Jumbo Jet" and "Queen of the Skies" aren't exactly like that. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that jumbo jet has a particularly long history, and Jumbo Jet has been moved around some too, albeit not nearly as much. FYI, I arrived here from patrolling the newly created Category:Invalid redirects and want to clear that up by creating proper hatnotes. I see that both sides of the discussion have merit and find no consensus for either. So, in the spirit of Wikipedia:Consensus #No consensus (In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.), I'm going to go with the original redirects as a compromise. The first version of Jumbo Jet, created 13 May 2002, made it the proper nickname for the 747, and that wasn't changed to the generic meaning for nearly four years. The first version of jumbo jet was created 14 February 2003, as a result of a move to Wide-body aircraft – that's right, the original 9 February 2003 "Wide-body aircraft" article was about jumbo jets! ...and pretty much reflected what I think is the everyday commoners top-of-the-head unsourced viewpoint of the matter. So that's what I'm going with. A hatnote for each. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the Solomon-like edit, and also appreciate making the distinction between capitalized and non-capitalized versions of "jumbo jet" (like Apple and apple. However, I would still advocate for pointing all versions to the 747, both to reflect the overwhelming usage of the term in published sources (and industry) and to avoid confusion between the "jumbo jet" and a simple descriptive phrase meaning a big jet. (Most people do not bother to capitalize when doing web searches anyway.)

Yes, the word "jumbo" alone has meant big ever since PT Barnum made a certain elephant famous in the late 1880s (the name is a likely variation on Swahili "hello" or "chief". In your research above, you sometimes dropped the "jet", and I would never suggest that just "jumbo" would refer to the 747. The phrase "jumbo jet" was specifically coined to refer to the unusually wide 747, and although the DC-10 was released as a "jumbo jet" competitor (as was the Lockheed TriStar), the name did not stick strongly, probably due to both the 747 being first and the dismal history of the DC-10 and short life of the TriStar. Boeing calls the 747 family Jumbo Jets, as do airlines.

I continue to admit the term "jumbo jet" has appeared rarely in media reports on the Airbus A380 and the 777 [4], but the vast majority of published sources use "jumbo jet" in reference to the 747, or to 747-like qualities. In the very articles on Wikipedia about wide-body aircraft, the term "jumbo-jet" does not appear except in reference to the 747, and in the Wide-body aircraft article itself, only appears in a paragraph in the summary which underscores that "jumbo jet" is the 747, and that other planes have other monikers using the word "jumbo".

budget car rental redirects to Budget Rent a Car and public storage redirects to Public Storage despite also being a generic descriptive terms. I would also compare this to great lakes, which do not point a listing a big lakes around the world, but to "The" Great Lakes in North America.... "The" Jumbo Jet is the 747. While there is some wisdom with going with the titles given by the original contributor, I would point out that the early versions you cite were within two years of the creation of Wikipedia itself, back when standards and conventions were still developing and markedly different then they are today. Your second justification ("everyday commoners top-of-the-head unsourced viewpoint"), is, perhaps by your intention, exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to avoid.

In summary, while it may seem a distinction to gloss over, the power of Wikipedia is such that a key redirect of a term can very quickly misinform the public and actually change the way the term is used. While "jumbo jet" has on occasion been used used to refer to other aircraft (primarily the DC-10), the overwhelming usage is the 747. Per WP:PTOPIC, the 747 should be the target of all the redirects, and the main topic on the disamb. page. Marcinjeske (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After some reflection... and a look at the history... I have made some changes to the Jumbo jet (disambiguation) page to reflect that pretty much every dictionary says something along the lines of "most often the 747". I also found a Canadian article [[5]] discussing usage of "jumbo jet" from a journalistic perspective, as well as dictionaries and other press articles which highlight the 747 but include "other wide-bodies" in the definition. The overall conclusion seems to be that jumbo jet usually refers to the 747, but can also be used for other large aircraft, and that is basically what the disamb page now says.

I also plan to change the Jumbo jet redirect to the disambiguation page, as I think that allows the distinction to be explained, rather than capitalization differences leading users to different pages. I would not be opposed to having the other variations like "jumbo jets" also redirect to the disambiguation page. I would point out that prior to August 2011, the Jumbo jet page primarily discussed the 747, with just a list of other large jetliners. The initial redirect to Wide-body aircraft (presumably because of the "list") was stable for a year, had an edit/revert to the 747, stayed stable for another year, my edit in August 2013 back to 747 was then stable for another year... so not a very controversial page. As I pointed out, discussing redirect pages is a bit hard because no one visits them, people only notice if the redirect changes. So I don't mean to start an edit war... which is why I am proposing the third option of pushing people to the redirect page where they can decide for themselves if they are looking for the 747 or any wide-body.Marcinjeske (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is not a "redirect" page. Per WP:MALPLACED, it is incorrect to redirect a "Foo" title to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title because that creates the appearance that there is a primary topic title at "Foo". Since the meanings in this case are not unrelated (a prerequisite for disambigution), the redirect should go to the article having the highest level of abstraction, which in this case is Wide-body aircraft. 747 can not be ambiguous to wide-body aircraft, because a 747 is a kind of wide-body aircraft, and is therefore not unrelated to the term. bd2412 T 15:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I understand it, a disambiguation page resolves conflicts where a single term can refer to more than one article. I see now that I mistakenly wrote "redirect page" when I meant disambiguation page. I hope you can adjust your reading of my comment above. My "third option" was to bring people to a disambiguation page where they can decide which meaning of Jumbo jet they are looking for.

I should point out that WP:MALPLACED is part of a project, not a guideline or policy. While WP:DABNAME would suggest that if "Jumbo jet" is ambiguous, the disambiguation page should sit directly at the term, I think it would be premature to actually move pages around until there is consensus that neither the 747 nor wide-body are sufficiently primary topics.

Finally, to continue to argue my case, I do not agree with the idea that because the terms are related, there should be no disambiguation, but rather favoritism to the "higher level of abstraction". I would argue that when terms are closely related, there is an even greater need for disambiguation. A reader looking for the city of Atlanta can clearly differentiate if they end up on the page for the Greek heroine, but could get confused if they end up at any of the 20 other cities or places named Atlanta.

The idea that if a term "bleeds up" to a whole category from a member of the category, the category wins the primary topic, is problematic... it would force changes to a whole host of generized names like iPod, Walkman, iPhone, all terms I have seen refer to their entire categories in published sources. Granted, "jumbo jet is not a trademark, but a nickname (though used and promoted by the Boeing), so I offer further examples: JesusPhone, coined by media for the iPhone, has already appeared in articles like: "Nexus S: the next Jesus phone?", exactly how "Jumbo Jet" competitors were discussed. There is the amorphous Gotham, nickname for New York City that has spread to include an interrelated web of organizations and fictional cities. Coke, which, I quote: "may refer to Coca-Cola, a soft drink ... The Coca-Cola Company .... Cola, any soft-drink similar to Coca-Cola.". Much like Coke redirecting to cola, redirecting Jumbo jet to wide-body would be inaccurate. Marcinjeske (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you are arguing for is the equivalent of redirects such as:

Find one example where a redirect like that actually exists. Now, there are some cases where trademarks become genericised, like Zamboni machine but show me one case where a non-trademarked, generic term became commercialized by common usage. I'd never heard of the term JesusPhone before you mentioned it; that's too obscure to be considered a common generic term. If you want to redirect Queen Jet to the 747, and have sources for that usage, fine. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have somehow completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I said. I hope it is undisputed that the term "jumbo jet" first appeared as a media nickname specifically for the Boeing 747. It did not begin life as a generic term, and I was surprised to discover during this discussion that so many consider it a generic term for widebody aircraft. None of the "equivalents" you cite are a nickname or term which originated with the product. I gave the iPod/Cola/iPhone/Walkman examples as counterexamples to User:BD2412's argument that a "redirect should go to the article having the highest level of abstraction". Much like "Jumbo jet", those three terms, while having strong connections to a specific company's products, are also used by published sources to refer to the whole category. I would argue that the ratio of references to non-iPod music players as "iPod" is greater than the ratio of references to non-747 planes as "jumbo jet". iPhone even has a disputed history as a trademark used for other products. The proposed doctrine of "highest level of abstraction" would suggest that these names should point to the general category; that is clearly wrong.

What I am arguing for is that when a term has both an original and pervasive connection to a specific product, that cannot be ignored even if the term has been used to refer to the entire category. In the three redirect examples you use, the terms not only predate the products, but are used specifically to underscore that a reference is to the broader category. In fact, this is exactly the purpose of wide-body airliner... the term was created in the 1960's to refer to the whole category that was introduced by the 747, which was quickly joined by competitors with wide-bodies, and therefore also two aisles. This was pointedly called the "widebody wars", not the "jumbo jet wars". I would never support the examples you give, much as I would not support widebody being a redirect to the 747.

I admit that many of the examples discussed, like iPhone and Walkman, are trademarks, while Jumbo jet is not, being a media moniker. The best similar example that came to mind was JesusPhone, which is heavily used in the British press, and around the introduction of the iPhone a few years back, made frequent appearances in the US press. It may be obscure to you, but not only is it covered in the iPhone article (more than I can say for "jumbo jet" in the widebody article until recent "save the redirect" attempts), but is a term regularly used by The Register, Gizmodo, both well-known technology publications, and has been referenced by mainstream media since 2007 Bloggers dub new device the 'Jesus phone,' some critics have their doubts and you have an discussion of the term here: www.examiner.com/article/how-and-why-iphone-transformed-into-jesus-phone.

But one example does not make an argument, so I dug deep to bring you more. Obamacare is a popular nickname for a specific act of the US Congress, the Affordable Care Act. It has since been used to refer to a whole raft of related healthcare reforms and the private insurance sold through the exchanges created by the act (as in: "I get my Obamacare from BlueCross"). The Y is a nickname for the YMCA (and the related YWCA), which is best known for athletic clubs, and the moniker is occasionally used for any generic athletic club. Smartcar has been used to refer to very small cars. The Tube is the London Underground, despite many British using it generically to refer to subways, and some calling NYC's PATH that same name. Jeep, way before it was trademarked by a car company, was used as a nickname for a variety of vehicles. Humvee was the nickname for a military vehicle way before referring to a consumer version. King of Pop is yet another nickname strongly linked with one, but also applied to a greater set. (Maybe King of Pop is a good model for the Jumbo set situation.)

And lastly, given the shared etymology, I can't resist mentioning Jumbovision, for Sony's Jumbotron, which is now generically used to refer to all giant screens, and Jumbo himself, who's name has become a generic term for the whole category of big things (and sometimes to refer a generic elephant), yet I hope you do not suggest that we redirect his name to some sort of "big things" article. Marcinjeske (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. See J. Haynes and J.F. Archibald, The Bulletin (1985), Volume 108, p. 141: "With sales weak and losses mounting, the European aircraft consortium was being pummeled by its main rival, Boeing Co. of Seattle, in the bloodiest battle for the skies since the jumbo-jet wars of the early 1970s"; William Lee Richter, The ABC-CLIO Companion to Transportation in America (1995), p. 380: "As the 1970s approached, Pan Am led the way in the wide-body and jumbo-jet wars, converting to the DC- 10 and Boeing 747"; William H. Gregory, The Defense Procurement Mess (1989), p. 113: "Neumann had a lot to do with conceiving the big, high-bypass- ratio turbofan engine that made jumbo jets like the C-5 and the 747 possible"; The Standard Bank Review (1971), p. 5: "And on the medium-haul and shorter routes, the smaller jumbo jets like the DC- 10, Lockheed TriStar and A-300B will be offering similar service over the shorter stages"; Lindsey Archibald, "In pictures: Have a look inside the luxury $300 million personalised planes being bought by billionaires" (Jun 17, 2014): "Gone are the days of private Lear jets and instead those with mega cash are buying jumbo jets like the 747 and A380". If the most common meaning is the 747, then saying that in the wide-body article is more helpful to the reader than just having the term redirect to a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 03:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I have certainly written too much on this... but... I surrendered on the idea that sources do not use "jumbo jet" to refer to non-747 planes, rather focusing on 747 being the primary use. Your citations do nothing to dispute that, and in fact the 747 is mentioned prominently in most of them. Given the numerous sources which call the 747 "the jumbo jet" or "the original jumbo jet", or which obviously use the term exclusively for the 747 while discussing other widebody aircraft, I see that as strong support for the 747 being the most common meaning. "saying that in the wide-body article" will (rightly) never be said until well into the article, so that's pretty useless for people who get there when they mean 747. The very purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct readers to the article they want quickly when the term they looked up is ambiguous (could refer to multiple articles). Saying that they can just find the correct article by reading further down the page misses the point. Marcinjeske (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, that I agree with most of whatMarcinjeske has said. I live in the area near Boeing and have done some research on this topic. Although the term has generalized a little, I think it should be noted on the Redirect Page that the 747 is the original Jumbo, and that the generalization came after. Either that or edit the Wide-body aircraft Article to explain that while some plane now are called "Jumbo Jets," this name originally came from the 747. I am open to suggestions though. --Airplane Maniac (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2014)

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– There is no primary topic. See discussion in the section above. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is a clear WP:DABCONCEPT topic here, that being the members of a group of very large jet airplanes. Since all of these are in fact Wide-body aircraft, there is nothing wrong with the redirect there. Otherwise, we will merely need to write a largely duplicative article on the concept of the "Jumbo jet" as distinct from other jets. Note that the other meanings listed on the disambiguation page are comparatively obscure roller coaster names. bd2412 T 14:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some references in Wide-body aircraft for the historical origin of the term, "Jumbo jet". bd2412 T 15:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, yup Gregkaye (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BD2412. Note that as of now nobody supports this move, except perhaps Marcinjeske, who has not yet taken a stand in this section. CBC's JUMBO JETS AND OTHER JARGON (also linked above) sealed the deal for me. The moniker "jumbo jet" is not owned by Boeing or anyone else. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I haven't "taken a stand" because I am a somewhat less frequent contributor... just noticed the new idea. As far as I can tell, switching around which page is the redirect really all results in the same thing, so I am fine either way. I do think you may have taken the wrong lesson from the CBC article I linked to... the quoted text talks about whether Boeing has ownership (essentially, trademark) over the term and can thus control it... but the article repeatedly says that the term originally referred to the 747 and that the 747 continues to be the most common usage in published sources... which is the core criteria for Wikipedia, to my knowledge. I understand User:Wbm1058 point that my redirect of a term to disamb page may be the reverse of best practice... I was trying to find a middle-ground between my firm belief that the primary topic is the 747 and the apparently pervasive idea that sources more commonly use the term to refer to all wide-bodies. Marcinjeske (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, fair enough: the term is "usually applied specifically to the Boeing 747." But this observation in no way suggests jumbo must be limited to 747s. Can you think of any other examples where a generic term redirects to a specific dominating product that is the primary topic for that term? I'd like to see some other precedents for this. One that just comes to mind is Zamboni machine. And they actually do have a trademark on the name, and are fighting trademark dilution. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding Budget rent-a-car and Public storage, those actually are the names of the companies. Now if the plane literally was named Boeing Jumbo Jet, you would have a point, especially if the model no. "747" was as obscure as, say IBM 5150. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - budget car rental *is not* the name of the company, that's why there has to be a redirect. While public storage is indeed the name of a company (Wow, my god is that article inadequate... it barely says what the company even does.), just naming an airplane "Wide Body Airliner" should not be sufficient to usurp the term... the criteria for Wikipedia is usage in reliable sources, which overwhelming use Public Storage to mean the company, and which overwhelming use "Jumbo jet" to refer to the 747. "if the plane literally was named Boeing Jumbo Jet" - since when is Wikipedia based on what companies call their products rather than what published sources call them? In fact, thank you for the additional precedent of IBM PC... a term that was quickly applied to a whole range of compatible computers from a number of different companies. We agree that Jumbo jet was originally just the 747, and that IBM PC was originally the first PC built by IBM. In published sources, most references to the IBM PC now refer to other computers, while most references to Jumbo jet still refer to the 747, yet you argue that IBM PC should point to the less common, original meaning, while Jumbo jet should *not* point to the much more common original meaning. How does that make sense? Marcinjeske (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right, "Jumbo jet", a term that was quickly applied to a range of compatible (jet)s from a number of different companies (McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed). I mean compatible loosely in the sense that it means any plane that can carry a lot of people. Re: most references to Jumbo jet still refer to the 747 – you need to back that claim up with some actual examples. In the section above, BD2412 has provided several examples that do not support your premise. Here's another one. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, malformed move request? Red Slash 23:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a determination of WP:SNOW, or that my request is now inappropriate, I'm willing to withdraw it. But, maybe we should just keep it open a bit longer in case there is significant support yet to show up. I just felt that it was time to close down the WP:BOLD editing and bring this to wider attention. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let it run to establish a clear consensus. bd2412 T 01:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Like IBM PC, Jeep and The Y, Jumbo jet is an moniker assigned to a specific product which has over time come to also apply to the entire category, but continues a strong connection with the original meaning. The Boeing 747 is "the jumbo jet" while the A380 is "a jumbo jet" (and has it's own, derived nickname). While the exact strength and ratio of references can be debated, an encyclopedic treatment of the term should acknowledge the distinction, and not bury it in an article on all wide body aircraft. Published analysis of this very question, like this CBC article, conclude that while jumbo jet usually refers to the 747 since "Boeing dubbed its first 747s 'Jumbo Jets' more than 30 years ago ... jumbo jet is not restricted to one aircraft" and most dictionary definitions include text like "originally and specifically a Boeing 747". To pretend that jumbo jet is most commonly a reference to any wide body plane undermines Wikipedia role in describing, rather than proscribing, information. Marcinjeske (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You think this refers to the 747, and would therefore move the disambiguation page - half of which is about roller coasters - to this title? You do understand, I hope, that if the disambiguation page becomes the primary topic for the term, it will be reformatted in accordance with WP:MOSDAB to take "Boeing 747" out of the first line, which will merely read: Jumbo jet may refer to: (followed by the listing). Since a Boeing 747 is a type of wide-body aircraft, it will appear as one bullet point under wide-body aircraft. bd2412 T 17:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the PC disambiguation. We might have something like that. Note that "PC" and "Personal Computer" are generic and do not redirect to the IBM PC. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since the dab page was a mess, I fixed it to what it should probably look like if this passes. See Jumbo jet (disambiguation) now. Note that the previous version, which stood untouched for two years, did not even mention the 747. And I'm also inclined to say, that if this passes, then Jumbo Jet should also redirect to the disambiguation, or perhaps the dab should be moved to the capitalized proper name. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: Since you recently edited the disambiguation page, I thought I'd ask if you would like to give your opinion here. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the move as "Jumbo jet" should clearly redirect to Boeing 747 the common usage but we can discuss redirecting it from the misleading "wide-body aircraft" depending on the result of the move request. Jumbo Jet (disambiguation) is already correctly mentioned at the top of the Boeing 747 article so all we need is to fix this wrong redirect. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This 1967 Popular Science article shows that the term jumbo jet had generic meaning from the beginning. It doesn't overly focus on a specific plane, but rather on the new concepts: two aisles, bigger engines, more lavatories, etc. It even mentions that Lockheed proposed a 900-passenger "monster". That word probably conjures up too many hideous images; thus the friendlier "super jumbo". The focus was on educating people about a new means of travel, not on glorifying a specific jet model.

But as I look at some more recent sources, I'm beginning to see the meaning of jumbo jet may indeed be evolving towards being a synonym for 747. That's probably due somewhat to its longevity. Still flying passengers, while the DC-10 is just flying cargo. For example, see the 2010 book Flight of the Titans: Boeing, Airbus and the Battle for the Future of Air Travel (funny, there's that word "monster" again, being used to describe the Airbus A380). On page 105, "there was a further piece of distinctive design that defined the jumbo jet: Its famous hump." OK, clearly a hump is not a defining characteristic of a widebody jet. When this author uses the term, they are talking specifically about the 747. Another example: United jumbo jet hull ruptures in July airport collision, Bloomberg, August 15, 2014. "The parked 747, one of only 24 jumbos at the carrier..." – I assume they mean United has 24 747s. When referring to another jet, the Boeing 777, its called "a wide-body model".

I think the DC-10 in its prime was commonly called a jumbo. But I see the Boeing 777, which seats about the same number of passengers, is now called a mini-jumbo, a term I don't think was used much in the early days of widebodies. Speaking of that, the 1967 Popular Science article never uses the term "wide body" or "widebody", even though it is talking about such aircraft in the generic sense. OK, the term has been around since the beginning, but has always been dwarfed by jumbo.

So, my question is, do you expect that, over time, after the last 747 has been retired and replaced by newer model jets, will the term "jumbo jet" only be used in a historical sense, and not to refer to any other actively flying jets? This may be possible, but I'm still not convinced. Widebody is kind of a clumsy word in comparison to jumbo. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"Jumbo jet"

The usage of "jumbo jet" is under discussion, see talk:jumbo jet (disambiguation) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]