Talk:Boeing 767

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing 767 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Boeing 767 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 17, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
February 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
March 5, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
October 1, 2011	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
January 6, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Aviation: Aircraft

	Aviation portal 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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on November 13, 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Mobile App

On the Boeing 767 page of Wikipedia on mobile it oddly saids Supersonic Transport instead of jet airliner but on any browser it saids jet airliner. Is this just something that happens or is there a way to fix this. The Minecraft60 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's lingering vandalism from a long-term abuser. It should change to the correct version if you clear the cache. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that makes sense now. Thanks for the explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Minecraft60 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to change this to "subsonic" or "jet" from supersonic, but let me try the cache clear. Thanks @Acroterion Pilotxaq (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thrust?

Why is thrust listed in "kgf" which is not a proper unit? It should be "kN" which appears to be used elsewhere.

baden k. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.143.29.8 (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

protection???

WTF is the protection for? I cannot see this article being controversial.

baden k. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.143.29.8 (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The summary says it was protected for vandalism nothing to do with controversy. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "As of" template in the accidents & incidents section - not capitalized

Pardon my ignorance but why is the "as" right at the start not capitalized? I tried a few different options with the syntax but the best I could get was the "as" capitalized but without the month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngjim (talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the instructions at Template:As of in the Parameters section, e.g. lc=y. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a bug in the template, in that |lc= without a value was giving lower case. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something like that. I tried lc=no without luck also. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Data template readability

I've been looking at the data in the template chart for this and the 757 trying to decipher it, and I have to admit I am stumped. What is the meaning off this "3-Class" "2-Class" business? If it is talking about planes set up in single, double or triple class sections, the numbers don't seem to add up. Maybe "3-class" actually means all third class? I don't know. And I also can't figure out why it appears to be showing less capacity than the 757. I'll have to look at that again. But moset of all, what is this "Y" "J" "F" business? There is no key at all, and even though I know something about planes I am totally baffled. "Youth", "Juniors" and "Females"? What happened to "First", "Business" and "Economy"? Is the average reader supposed to know what these letter mean and I'm just dumb? "18F/196Y"? Idumea47b (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y, J and F classes are economy, business and first, respectively. The booking class is explained when you leave your mouse over the letter. The code is used in airline reservations and is standard for airline seating classes. The average aviation reader is often informed. "3-Class" "2-Class" are seating arrangements. The numbers mostly add up (15+40+119=174, 18+42+150=210, 16+36+189=241 not 243 : there are 38J seats in Boeing's layout, thanks for checking, 18+196=214, 24+237=261, 24+272=296). To compare between the 757 and 767, you should compare 2-class seating not 3-class. The 757-300 does have a slightly higher 243 (12F+231Y) capacity than the 767-200 [214 (18J, 196Y)].--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC) please proofread before saving and keep questions short, thanks[reply]

New Image

We currently have a Delta Air Lines Boeing 767-300 as the infobox image. But dosen't this DAL SkyTeam livery Boeing 767-400ER look better?

BuddyHeigh (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's too tightly cropped, it's an unusual model, and it's an atypical livery for Delta. We should stick with standard liveries and typical variants for infobox entries. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the standard livery over special liveries. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I hope this or this will work.

BuddyHeigh (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a compelling reason to change - neither alternative is an improvement in quality, composition or resolution, and Delta is still the largest passenger operator. The main articles on airliners get a lot of requests for image changes, which are typically resisted unless a new image is substantially better or serves the article in some better way. Images should not be used as favorites or changed without a specific reason. We try to avoid image churn. Acroterion (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I should note that all of the proposed alternatives are profoundly underexposed on the undersides of the airplanes. No details are visible, but they are visible on the Delta aircraft, which is noted as retouched, probably to lift the shadows. This is one of the difficulties with photographing airplanes in general - it's dark down there, and it's hard to accommodate the dynamic range. I speak from experience on this. This image of a cargo A300 that I took needed to have the belly shadows lifted and the sky highlights diminished before I would post it. It is a quality image on Commons, and at 20MB is 15 or 20 times more resolution that what we commonly see from Jetphotos and the like, which are usually little more than snapshots. Acroterion (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]