Talk:Boeing 747SP
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many people asked me to create a full SP page, so I did! When I get time, I will add more pictures and specs here. For now do some editing yourself or write to me and I will put it on here. But please be correct with your facts and stories --Bangabalunga 17:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flying Hospital of The Saudi Arabian Govenrment
I saw this http://www.saudiembassy.net/2006News/News/NewsDetail.asp?cIndex=5949 when I made a search at Google, so I would rather not mention that operator for the 747SP. If anyone has any piece of news/pictures of this use of the 747SP, please share it!! ;-) Adleos 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] anonymous revert
To the anonymous editor who reverted the recent changes: there is a WikiProject Aircraft which has guidelines on aircraft articles. My recent edits were in line with these guidelines and improved the overall clarity and flow of the document, as well as converting it in many places to a more encyclopedic tone and structure. Yes, I did remove irrelevant data like the specifications for the 747-200 and other models; this article is about the 747SP. If you're going to speak for wikipedia, consider registering an account. ericg ✈ 06:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- As this issue has been raised on WikiProject Aircraft and peer review has been requested, I came here to see what the fuss was all about. For my part, I believe the edits that ericg made did improved the encyclopedic quality of the article. And I echo his statement above: if you're going to make statments as if you own WP, at least register and join the community. Akradecki 15:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Ericg did make improvements to the page. I also believe that comparison specs should not occur. But in this case since the SP is a sister plane to the 747-100, maybe we should have a table that has both types. This is not a case of comparing Airbus to Boeing and so on, I dont agree with that. The SP should be compared to atleast the 747-100. Other than that, Im ok with it. --Bangabalunga 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Where did the delivery table go? Nothing wrong with that. --154.20.74.115 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
No question the edits were an improvement. I know we're supposed to "assume good faith," but the snide comment that went with that revert makes it hard to do. —SkipperPilot 17:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I see both points of view. Eric you drastically changed the whole article to your liking. I know we have a wikiproject aircraft layout but sometimes commonsense should prevail. I saw both edits. This person kept almost all your changes except your spec table. Whats wrong with that? This person's edit comment was a bit harsh I give you that, but overall I was ok with the last edit of this person. He/she kept your info box. He/she kept your layout. He/she kept your wording changes. He/she put the spec table back but took 747-400 out. So lets not dismiss this person either but at the same time support eric.--Anais1983 22:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- The look I took at the diff, then and now, showed basically a complete revert - including layout and wording. The grammar and structure changes were not retained. I'm not convinced that a per-year breakdown of orders is beneficial to readers; likewise with a large comparison table of specifications for aircraft not discussed in the article. These issues probably could be raised with WP:AIR. ericg ✈ 23:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)