Talk:Boeing Yellowstone Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Links to be integrated

I will integrate these links and info at some point in the near future: [1][2][3][4][5][6] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is totally unverifiable

No where on Boeings website is there mention of any "Yellowstone Program" which makes me wonder where this idea came from.

Support - I totally agree, I checked the Boeing website today, I haven't seen any one of the informations given in the article. Either this information is yet a secret project that we shouldn't know or is a make-up bedtime story by Boeing fans. Another thing, the article Boeing 797 redirects here but there are no traces of a Boeing 797 in this article. Tekin 17:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, try reading the SEVEN sources listed under "External links", all from reputable aviation publications (not by Boeing fans!), all posted online. Those are called verifiable sources, and are enough to substantiate the article. As to the "797", one of the sources (if not, it's on th Y1 page), mentions the designation in conjunction with the Y1/737RS program. I will try to put a mention in the Y1 page (with a cite), and redirect the link there. THanks. - BillCJ 17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter... Boeing 797 still needs to be referenced in the article. I found no trace of it either. -Rolypolyman (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


As an Aerospace Engineer, I have friends in Yellowstone and they don't tell me specifics about their jobs. The "Y" projects are items of company internal information. Whether Y projects may continue as trim varients to existing product lines (e.g., the -900 variant of the Boeing 737) or receive their own product designation remains yet to be seen. No aircraft has been designated the Boeing 797. That page/link should entirely be removed. That is, typing Boeing 797 should return a "That page doesn't exist."

Jadias (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point... I will see about initiating a VFD. -Rolypolyman (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The passenger capacities shown on the graph are wildly inaccurate. There has never been a 777 built that can, in any configuration, carry 400-500 passengers. I didn't even bother checking other capacities after looking at those for the 777 and 747 (which, according to this graph, can carry nearly 600). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.179.57 (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute Tag Added

Is this project even real? Dropal 03:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we have referenced sources, yes. The 787 is the first of three elements of Yellowstone. Are you unable to read cited sources? I removed the unnecessary and inappropriate tag. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 10:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion tag

I removed the {{tl}expansion}} tag from the Talk Page, which ghad been added in April '06. I assume they wanted the article to be expanded. However, as that still has not happened (lack of content to expend with, most likely), I have proposed a merger with the Y1 and Y3 pages (see below). - BillCJ 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested merger

Boeing Y1 and Boeing Y3 → Boeing Yellowstone Project I assume when these pages were added, it was thought that we would have much more info by this time. However, as all 3 pages are still stubs, it would be best to keep them on one page at this time. - BillCJ 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

[edit] Survey - Support votes

  • Support - As detailed above. - BillCJ 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - As detailed above. —Jonathan D. Parshall (Talk | contribs) 05:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Y3 - There is not enough information about this project, which is most likely still 10 years away, to give it its own article at this time. Nick Moss 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support As detailed aboveAdmRiley (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - It is now both a merger and an AFD proposal at the same time, let's do one first, as it seems likely to be the next generation as per above detailed information and that the we look at the AFD request. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
    • I think this survey closed a year ago. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - Oppose votes

  • Oppose - Y1 - I believe there is enough information on the Y1/737RS, which I expect will be launched within the next 2-3 years, to support its own article. Nick Moss 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Y1 - I think that as more information on this project becomes available, people will be looking for a specific article instead of a more general page.
  • Oppose - Y1 - We are discussing a merge right before Y1 should theoretically get rolling. All cues (from cited articles) suggest that the project begin in earnest around the time the 787 project is completed, which is nearing. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The Y1 artcle is longer than the other 2 at this time, but it's addition here would help to fill out the combined article nicely. As we near launch, much more info should start to come out, at which time the info could be split off again, possibly to a differnt name than Y1. In the mean time, is the Y1 page more or less likely to remain about the same size? Can we really know the answer? I have no problem mergingthe Y3 in alone, I just don't want to leave the Y1 page where it is, and have it not grow for 2 years. - BillCJ 07:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have merged the Y3 article in to this one, given there doesn't seem to be any disagreement on that front, and that the article had no content that was not already covered here. I have left the Y1 article as is, given there isn't a consensus on whether it should be merged here, or retained as its own article. Personally, I don't think we'll see the Y1 page remain static for 2 years - I would be very surprised if more information didn't start emerging about Boeing's 737 replacement studies this year.Nick Moss 01:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, I know, CITED SOURCES!

Isn't there, though, the slight problem that no where on Boeing's own website does it say anything about a "Yellowstone Project". It sounds like a bunch of rumors to me. Dropal 05:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What matters is that we have cited, verifiable sources in the article. Nowhere on WP:ATTR or WP:V does it say that a company's website has to have info on a subject for it to be included here. In fact, third-party/non-company sources are still required, otherwise it can be considered promotional or corporate spam. - BillCJ 06:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I know. But a primary source is quite nice otherwise it can be considered rumor. 70.42.90.31 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Not by Wikipedia policy, which is what matters here. - BillCJ 17:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that any thing that is put on the web can be used as a sorce. AdmRiley (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course not! It needs to be from a reliable source. Most of the sources used in this article are reputable aviation magazines, and most have print editions too. - BillCJ (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


As an Aerospace Engineer, I have friends in Yellowstone and they don't tell me specifics about their jobs. The "Y" projects are items of company internal information. Whether Y projects may continue as trim varients to existing product lines (e.g., the -900 variant of the Boeing 737) or receive their own product designation remains yet to be seen. No aircraft has been designated the Boeing 797. That page/link should entirely be removed. That is, typing Boeing 797 should return a "That page doesn't exist."

Jadias (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article should be removed

I have spent considerable time researching this topic and I believe that the entry should be removed. I began pursuing this when I noticed the non-sequitur redirect of "Boeing 797", which itself appears to be pure internet fiction.

The first external link goes as far as to say: "It is now incumbent upon Boeing to show us proof of its research." (Richard Aboulafia)

The second link rightly points out that: "There are as yet no official plans for any Boeing 787 or 797. ...we really have no idea what projects they might actually decide to pursue or when. We can only make our best educated guesses as to where the airline market is going and what classes of aircraft are likely to be in demand. " (Jeff Scott)

The third citation does nothing to forward the Y series speculation. (The fourth citation, of the same "review," discusses the 7E7, which is definitively NOT part of the Y series.)

The "Flight International" link barely mentions the Yellowstone project, indicating only that: "Believed to be codenamed Yellowstone 1 (Y1), the project forms one of the three Yellowstone new-generation studies..."

The final article mentions the Y1 project but again only goes as far to say that it is "believed" to be in existence.

In short, none of these alleged citations provide their own reliable citations, certainly none of these articles give any solid proof that the Yellowstone Project warrants an entry as such. Furthermore, the so-called "citations" are not even that -- they are merely "external links" that do not substantiate the claims of the entry. And where did the figure on the entry come from? It is a uncited graph that only refers back to itself (it was apparently found on Wikipedia in the first place).

The Wikipedia article on the Boeing Yellowstone Project is definitively NOT encyclopedic knowledge, but is so much internet detritus and speculation. It should be removed, or at least framed in terms of urban myths and internet science fiction projections. --Christopher Schaberg (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

PRODs are to be used only if the deletion is "uncontroversial". In addtion, once a PROD has been removed, it is not to be re-added, as the PROD itself states. Your next step would be to add an AFD tag instead, and to follow the directions on the tag. I've messed up the only AFD I ever tried to do, so I can't help you with that.
As to your problems with the article, I've done some research of both the Yellowstone and 797 claims. The 797 is definetely pure specualtion, with most mentions beings blogs, while Yellowstone is mentioned in reputable publications such as Flight International, though the citations are old. You never stated if you tried to find up-to-date sources on Yellowstone or not, so I am assuming you did not. That's not your responsibility, however, but up to the contributors of the article. As such, I have posted a note on the WP:AIR project page for help in this. Btw, the reason that "BOeing 797" redirects is has nothing to do with the internet rumos, but is simply because "797" is the next available number in the 7x7 line, and either Y1 or Y2 will most likely use this number. - BillCJ (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi BillCJ. Thanks for following up on this. I'm still new to Wikipedia's editing procedures, so I appreciate your suggestions and clarifications. I will continue to research this topic. As for the "Flight International" article, it seems to be primarily an opinion piece that only cites an Airbus employee speculating about the Boeing Y1 project. Also, that article merely states in the passive voice what is "believed" to be the case about the Boeing Y project. As a citation, it offers no verification, old or not. --Christopher Schaberg (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What part of If this template is removed, it should not be replaced are you having trouble understanding? I'm trying not to be too contentious with this, but if a PROD is removed, it is not to be re-added. You need to add the {{AFD}} template, and follow the instuctions. - BillCJ (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, BillCJ; I am really just trying to learn how to use the editing features on Wikipedia. I will try to use the AFD template next time. I am certainly not doing this to irritate you, although I can see that you seem to have some vested interest in this subject, given your tenacity at policing the edits of this article. I don't think I have caused too much harm, though, especially considering the dubious nature of this article. If anything, visitors to this article should know that the information is not verified. In the meantime, I did attempt to research the Boeing Yellowstone Project but found nothing besides questionable online mentionings. There is no proof that the Yellowstone Project is encyclopedic knowledge; rather it seems to be an interesting theory about the future of Boeing aircraft production -- but an unsubstantiated theory, nothing more at this point. For this article to remain as it is, it should have citations for its statements, not merely a list of external links that further the speculations. I do understand that you believe the article's information to be true, but for it to stand as encyclopedic knowledge one should be able to know where the information originated. --Christopher Schaberg (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be purely speculative and crystalgazing. I haven't seen this in any aviation magazine or on any reliable wesbites or books. The only websites which do mention this are less reliable. Also have a look at this from the official boeing website - [7]. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 13:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper articles appear to indicate Yellowstone as the code name for the future 787

“ "Yellowstone, he said, is one of the code names for an aircraft design in the P-2 program, one of the various research efforts that fall under the umbrella of 20XX. The P-2 designation refers to planes that would seat 200 to 300 passengers, or about as many as Boeing's 767 and the Airbus A330-200. These planes serve what's known as the "middle" of the commercial market." ... "Roundhill said the baseline P-2 aircraft looks a lot like the 777." Boeing Mum On Speedier Jet Report Claims `Yellowstone' Would Fly Near Speed Of Sound; Any Far- Out Plane Is Far Off, Analysts Say; [FINAL Edition] JAMES WALLACE P-I reporter. Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: Jan 20, 2001. pg. C.1. ”

Looks like this article (above) uses P-2 instead of Y-2. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

“ "Which will Boeing build, the sonic cruiser, once known as Glacier, or a slower, more conventional jet, Yellowstone, that would be much more efficient to operate than today's jetliners?" Boeing Presses On With Sonic Cruiser ; But It Continues To Consult Airlines On Next New Plane JAMES WALLACE P-I aerospace reporter. Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: Jul 24, 2002. pg. A.1. ”

Above, a 2002 article about "Glacier", the Boeing Sonic Cruiser and "Yellowstone" the future 787 though 787 is not used in the article. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

“ "The sonic cruiser came as a surprise. Few knew about the project code named "Glacier," a plane - with double delta wings at the rear with no traditional tail - that would be able to cruise as efficiently as today's jets but at nearly the speed of sound. But even before Boeing had talked publicly about the sonic cruiser, its product development people were working on what was known internally as project "Yellowstone," a super-efficient plane." Sonic Cruiser Is Shelved ; Boeing Will Instead Focus On The Development Of A New Super- Efficient Plane JAMES WALLACE P-I aerospace reporter. Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: Dec 19, 2002. pg. A.1. ”

That article (above) makes it sound like the Sonic cruiser was code named "Glacier" and the 787 to be was "Yellowstone". No mention of Y-1 to Y-3. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

“ "But what if Boeing took the technology for the Sonic Cruiser and put it on a plane that would cruise at the same speed as the 777 and 747, or about Mach .85? Boeing had already done the backroom calculations. Such a midsize plane would be at least 20 percent more fuel efficient than the 767. Dubbed Yellowstone, it would come to be known as the 787. It looked nothing like the Sonic Cruiser, but they were born together, from the same mother and father. The groundbreaking work that Boeing had already started to do even before 2001 for its next new jet paved the way for the 787, from the Dreamliner's composite airframe and more electric architecture to the revolutionary way it would be manufactured." How The `Dream' Was Born ; Airliner For 21st Century Grew Out Of Silver Suitcase JAMES WALLACE P-I aerospace reporter. Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: Jun 29, 2007. pg. A.1. ”

This article (above) only mentions Yellowstone one time in its story about the 787. It lists 20XX as the "product development group" that was responsible. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Three of the external links also indicate code name Yellowstone is the aircraft that became the 787. As for Y1, the news reports seem to favor 737 Replacement Study and I can find no articles via proquest that call the replacement a Y1 though several refer to the replacement study. Other article that refer to Yellowstone, the code name for the 787, refer to the larger development program as 20XX, not yellowstone. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I've tried EBSCOhost, not much for hits, several more that refer to Yellowstone as the aircraft that would be the 787. However, I have found a couple that refer to the replacement study for the 737 as "Yellowstone 1" / 737RS. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

“ "In previous studies revealed in 2006, Boeing examined several unconventional configurations as part of its 737 Replacement Study/Yellowstone 1 evaluations. Amongst these were several aft-mounted engine configurations, including a low-noise concept with provision for conventional high-bypass or puller counterrotating propfan engines located on extended fuselage-mounted struts."OPEN QUESTION. By: Barrie, Douglas, Norris, Guy, Wall, Robert, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 00052175, 10/22/2007, Vol. 167, Issue 16 ”
“ "Both Airbus and Boeing have recently talked about slipping A320 and 737 replacement projects until around 2015, citing the need for more advanced propulsion technology. The Airbus NSR (new short-range) A320 successor project, provisionally aimed at a 2012-13 service entry like Boeing's follow-on single-aisle program (known as Yellowstone 1 or 737RS, for "replacement study"), is now not envisaged to arrive until the middle of the next decade."Stepping Up a Gear. By: Norris, Guy, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 00052175, 8/13/2007, Vol. 167, Issue 7 ”

Regardless, I found about twice as many refs in EBSCOhost that referred to "Yellowstone" as a baseline aircraft for the Sonic cruiser ("Glacier"). That baseline aircraft became the 787. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)