Talk:Boeing 737

Further developments --> Upgrades

The short section 'Further developments' has been redeveloped into 'Upgrades'. This has created a redundant, parallel and slightly inconsistent second account of the development of the Original series through its four generations, which is already well described in the following sections. Consequently, I have reverted it. If there really is new material in the new Upgrades section, then it should be integrated into the relevent relevant generation. However, I see little or no new material being introduced, it's just a second account. The creation of 'Upgrades' takes the article back to an earlier time when there were also two competing sections: the first dealing with technical developments in isolation and the second dealing with the generations that incorporated these developments. The result was a fragmented account that was very hard to read and, inevitably, was forced to repeat itself. The pupose of the section 'Further developments' was simply to set out the structure of the evolution of the 737 and is probably complete as it was and now is again.. I do not wish to discourage, if you really have new information on the development, put it in, but in the relevant generation. Ex nihil ^(talk) 17:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually is not a redundant or parallel to the 'variants/generation' section as 'Upgrade' should continue the development history mentioned in 'Initial design' to 'Introduction' of the original 737 series. It should contain "major upgrades" involving re-engine and wing/fuselage stretch/enlarge as well as "minoor updates" involving minor aerodynamic or structural improvement such as winglets, additional tanks, gravel kits, etc. I was still not done as the "Upgrades" section just included the "major upgrades" description only, which i extracted from the 'variants/generation' section (I didn't create it but just a bit rephrase). Otherwise we have a discontinue development history of 737: portion about 737 Original in the 'Development' section and other portions embedded in the 'variants/generation' section which makes difficult for a reader whiteout background knowledge to figure out the development of B737 family that is more complex than A320 family concerning the number of upgrades and the nomenclature. Just take for example the A320 family article, which is qualified as a good one: the stretched version A321 is mentioned in 'Development' as well as in 'Variants' section with the different that in the 'Development' you will read the background story: "Its launch came on 24 November 1988 after commitments for 183 aircraft from 10 customers were secured." and "This came after a dispute between the French,who...and the Germans,..." but in the 'Variants' you will read only about the stretched fuselage, heavier, etc., i.e. straight to the point. Again, shortly said, 'Development' section should contain (why/how) and variants section (what) was developed.

Regarding the section name 'Upgrades' is a bit better than 'Further developments' concerning the content. 'Further developments' suggests that something developed into something other, e.g. DC-9 is further developed into MD-80 or 737 into FSA (replacement), whilst 'Upgrades' suggests that something developed into something which retains the same baseline. Furthermore, if we describe the four generations in the 'Further developments' would suggest that the 737 Original is developed in itself first as it is already described in the previous section 'Initial design'. 91.74.81.218 (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Discuss for consensus

This article is getting a bit scrambled. IP editor User:91.74.81.218 has extended the development of the 737 into a third overlapping section. I have not deleted any of 91.74.81.218's data but I have moved it Originally we had:

• Further developments, which was very short and acted as only an index to the Generations for those unfamiliar, so we really had only two accounts

1. Design, and
2. Four Generations

As 91.74.81.218 had it we had:

1. Upgrades, which was quite extensive and dealt with developments by component over time.
2. Design, dealing with developments by component.
3. Four generations dealing with developments over time.

Each of these tells, or repeats, a part of the story about development. I have since:

• Reinstated Further developments as an index. Most people new to the 737 will need this and it is introductory.
• Merged the developments that were in Upgrades into Four Generations. This has created duplications but at least these can now easily be seen and edited out.
• Temporarily moved The Four Generations up to the top to make it clear what the Further develloments were. I don't think this is necessarily the best place for it.

Now, we are back to two parallel stories, Four Generations and Design. Ideally, developments in Design would be relocated into the Four Generations but that doesn't quite work, so maybe into Further developmenst, deleting anything already in Four Generations.

It would be useful if interested editors agree a structure here before making any futher, major changes. Ex nihil ^(talk) 10:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The aircraft project has an established guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content, why the 737 should be a special case I'm not sure. The 'generations' are simply variants with sub variants. They have correctly been split off to their own articles in accordance with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE but too much prose has been left behind, should be no more than a couple of paragraphs. At 121 kb the article size indicates that it needs splitting again, if the variant summaries were reduced it would probably be under 100 kb. The table of contents is far too long, the header levels need adjusting or remove the headers. I count 43 images, some of these could go with the removed prose.

This article is attempting to be a complete guide to the 737 where it should be a summary overview with links to the relevant articles, noting that it contains info on the first variants (no reason why that can't be split off either). I'm sure others will chip in, I have no particular interest in this article, I think it is on my watch list because it was being frequently hit by vandalism. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that details of the original generation could logically be split off into a separate article. However, this would be at odds with many other airliner articles, where the first generation is covered in the main article, so maybe wider discussion would be worthwhile before making that change. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe the flow will be better covering the generation changes in one main section (usually Development per WP:Air/PC guide). -Fnlayson (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Change the image

change the lead image to boeing 737 Iraqi airways And add the Iraqi airways to the premium users Taha16joker (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please post the image here that you want to use for consideration. Note that the purpose of the image in the Infobox is to clearly show the aircraft, preferably in flight and often the most common variant. This is not to show off a certain operator, special livery, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The suggested image of YI-ASF File:Iraqi Airways Boeing 737-81Z at Munich Airport.jpg that User:Taha16joker was trying to add to the article is not suitable as User:Fnlayson has explained, it is a landing shot with a cluttered background and airborne shots will aways be prefered, the airline is not relevant to picture choice. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne.--Iovecodeabc (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Minus signs again

Fnlayson, Mandruss: First thing I noticed on reading this article was all the incorrect minus signs. I assumed these were just typos and was getting ready to fix them when I found an old talk page discussion that indicates this was done intentionally to confound a misbehaving bot. This seems very wrong to me. These should be changed to hyphens. Then if someone (or some thing) changes them to dashes, that person, or the person who controls the thing, should be reverted and told not to do it again. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If you read carefully, the last archived discussion was mainly about bots incorrectly putting ndashes in the model and variant designations, e.g. 737-100. These are NOT number ranges. So ndashes are not appropriate per MOS. Simple dashes or hyphens are more fitting for these. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Boeing 737-100 (N73700) on its maiden flight.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Boeing 737-100 (N73700) on its maiden flight.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Question for wheel wells

I've heard a theory posts that Boeing 737's main landing gears does not have door is because this type lowered cabin floor so the cabin could have more space to save more luggage into cabin. Is it right? --Great Brightstar (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

As I recall, the gear wheel forms part of the door due to limited space. I think this is due to using original layout and design for larger variants with larger wheels and/or gear hardware. I'll try looking for a source for this... -Fnlayson (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Lighter, less parts thus less cost and less maintenance. No wheel well doors is common for medium range aircraft, eg Airbus A220 (see ref [132] there), Embraer E-Jet, ATR42/72, Pilatus PC-24..., until the small aero gain overturn the weight and complexity.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Wikipedia talk pages are not the best place for these kind of discussions, see WP:NOTFORUM.

• Users asking questions like these can mean that the information is not covered in the article or the coverage is poor or vague. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, can you please move this topic to other place such as WP:RD? Thanks. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Delivery table discrepancy with Boeing database (O&D)

There is a discrepancy between delivery table in the article with the Boeing database (O&D):

Delivery Year : |Total|2022|2021|2020|2019|...|1967|

Deliveries (WP) : |11,264|387|263|43|127|...|4|

Deliveries (O&D): |11,112|386|261|41|126|...|4|

Should it be synced/fixed? Ich-Du-De (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it was my mistake I forgot to check the 737BBJ, so case closed! Ich-Du-De (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Most important fact about 737 -- numbers -- not WP:Puffery

@Rosbif73: Please note that I have (mostly) reverted your reversion of my insertion of the phrase "world's most popular jetliner", because -- CONSISTENT with WP:PUFFERY section "Anti-"reliable sources"-ism", I've included it as THE single most important fact about the 737. To accommodate your sensitivity to the language, I've replaced "most popular" with the less vague, more purely-factual, "most-numerous". While some who are fans of rival Airbus may take issue with this (and Airbus has recently outsold the 737), it remains the incontrovertible fact (well documented in my insertion, with another source added) that there have been more 737s built than any other jetliner. THAT, alone, is THE primary reason for the plane's WP:notability. Please do not revert, but read my edit notes (in View History), and then discuss here, for all to see.

~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The 737 is notable anyway, as is the A320 - and they will both remain notable regardless of which one has the most sales or deliveries. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

737-300 is supposed to have more range than the -200?

The article for the 737-300 cites that Boeing wanted to give the -300 more range than the -200Adv. But this article cites the -200 having MORE range than the -300 despite this? Can someone clear this up? Looking at the cited graph confuses me, as the graph seems to show the max range you can have with highest payload possible is around 1750 nmi. CorpSimmons (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM: we're not here to discuss technicalities (albeit I assume many editors are knowledgeable enough) but to discuss the encyclopedic content of the article. Maybe try airliners.net or comparable forums.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)