Talk:Boeing New Midsize Airplane

Fair use rationale for File:Boeing New Midsize Airplane side view.jpeg

File:Boeing New Midsize Airplane side view.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Level of detail in this article

Almost all of this article is based on speculative sources, and a bold editor would probably find it easy to justify deleting many of the details per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. The history section repeats essentially the same speculation about market size numerous times, for example, and the engines section goes into great detail with very few sourced hard facts. Conversely, there are a lot of interesting details that are no doubt worth keeping.

The article is likely to draw a lot of attention if the general expectation of a 797 announcement at this year's Paris air show proves true. What do other editors feel about trying to pare the details down a bit before then? Rosbif73 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is about a subject notability, not its content (e.g. 2024 Summer Olympics OK, 2040 Summer Olympics too soon), and WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper prohibits Original reporting; routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities; news coverage of an individual; covering trivia to look like a diary - not really the case here.

I'm certainly responsible for many additions, and I tried to add only new information, but some could be redundant. The best thing to do would be to proofread it looking for redundancies, and trim them as they come (explicitly pointing to redundancies may enhance edit verifiability).

This article was spin off from Middle of the market in March 2018. I think it would be best to create a new Boeing 797 article when it will be launched, to leave all this history here.

It is interesting in the context of aircraft design process, to show the strategy behind a new program launch. The engine section itself is an example in itself in engine strategy (as far as I know, it contain only sourced facts).

Boeing should make a decision already, to make it or to ditch it, if only to avoid to stop this article from expanding eternally :) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Globally, I agree with you, Marc – and having spent a fair bit of time yesterday copyediting the history section I'd be reluctant to see it go :-) The market size figures and the prospective introduction date were what struck me as being most repetitive, but I'm sure there are other aspects that would never have been included in such detail if this article had been written retrospectively about the pre-launch development of an older plane. The detail in the engine section is indeed very interesting and well sourced, but the sources are nevertheless largely speculative ("CFM International has hinted that a new engine architecture with a gear-driven fan is among the various concepts under consideration for Boeing’s potential new midsize airplane" and "Any decision [...] on participation [...] will depend on a business case around perceived market size for the aircraft", for example (my emphasis, of course). I'm not suggesting anything other than a slight trim of the article, but I fear that others may be bolder and consider many of the slowly evolving details to be "trivia".

As to whether this article should later be renamed to form the beginning of a 797 article or left as a separate history article, that's a matter to be decided when the time comes. I'd probably agree with you on leaving it as a separate article, FWIW. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

797 naming speculation

@Fnlayson: The wording:

The new aircraft, likely to be named the Boeing 797

is a bit off given that it’s based on speculative sources and given that the program is on hiatus. It can’t really be likely to be named something that hasn’t been officially announced, if it’s unclear whether the program will ever come to market (let alone be called the 797).

Even the cited source for the statement says that it is thanks to aviation-industry market guru Udvar-Hazy – not Boeing or anything more authoritative. The future naming of the NMA was already speculation before (even if it was widely believed in the aviation industry), but it’s much more so now that the program isn’t even scheduled to finish.

At the very least, the grammatical tense is off as it assumes/implies the completion of the program; the wording needs to be changed and WP:INTEXT-attributed time reflect that this is what industry experts believed before the hiatus. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Your wording suggested wild/unfounded speculation to me. I just reworded the text to say "expected to be named the Boeing 797 by aviation experts". -Fnlayson (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What does the 797 look like

Post your pictures here 139.193.120.126 (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No, please don't. Anything related to the NMA or "797" is pure speculation given Boeing's current position that a NMA won't be launched in the near future. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Top photo and perspective

The photograph at the top is intended to provide a visual guide for the market segment the NMA is targeting. However, the photograph's perspective seems to undermine it, since the smaller 757 is in front of the larger 767, minimizing the apparent difference between the two. Incredible Oedipal Egg (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to improve it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)