Template talk:Boeing7x7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- This template was listed on templates for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. --William Allen Simpson 17:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sonic Cruiser/2717
Is there any source for the Sonic Cruiser carrying the 2717 designation? If it wasn't an official designation, it probably shouldn't be included in this template. Nick Moss 10:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's the first I've heard of it, too. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- For that matter, is it a leap to far to call 2707, Y1 and Y3 members of the 7x7 series? Perhaps they should be removed along with 2717, or the template changed to 'Boeing Airliners' or something to that effect? Nick Moss 09:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Make it Boeing Airliners, and you might as well include the 80, 247, 307, 314 and 377. I tried tracking down the model 2717 designation, and the only place that ever mentions it is here at Wikipedia (or sites that use the wp database). McNeight 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Would it be such a bad thing to include earlier Boeing Airliners? If we do want to keep it to jet powered aircraft, how about making it 'Boeing Jet Airliners'? That would more accurately reflect the inclusion of the 2707, Sonic Cruiser, Y1 and Y3. If it is going to be purely 7x7 aircraft, then those 4 (and perhaps 7J7 as well, since it never left the drawing board) should probably be removed from it. Nick Moss 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Make it Boeing Airliners, and you might as well include the 80, 247, 307, 314 and 377. I tried tracking down the model 2717 designation, and the only place that ever mentions it is here at Wikipedia (or sites that use the wp database). McNeight 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- For that matter, is it a leap to far to call 2707, Y1 and Y3 members of the 7x7 series? Perhaps they should be removed along with 2717, or the template changed to 'Boeing Airliners' or something to that effect? Nick Moss 09:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The Sonic Cruiser / 2717 designation was discussed somewhere else, too, and it was determined to be so much bs. Boeing never used a model number publicly, and if it had one it's unlikely the internal designator would be such a nostalgic one. Also, I'm not sure if this template should even exist - the standard WP:Air sequence system only goes three aircraft either direction, not ten. ericg ✈ 05:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd strongly disagree about removing the template. It provides a useful overview of Boeing's commercial jet aircraft, rather than just what came immediately before and after the one discussed in an article. While I believe standardisation is a good thing, I think this template is significantly more worthwhile than the standard sequence system, and I'd like to see such templates more widely used. There is already one for Airbus, and I have just created one for Douglas and McDonnell Douglas airliners. Perhaps I should raise this for discussion over at WP:Air... Nick Moss 06:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've had a go at creating a new template which adresses the inconsistancies of the current one. It isn't perfect (if someone knows how to left justify the headings, while keeping the items centre justified, please do), but hopefully it is a start.
Boeing airliners
