Talk:Boeing 737 MAX/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

launched ???

An early sentence says: The Boeing 737 MAX series was launched on August 30, 2011. I feel the word launch is too general to be used here. It is the word used in the announcement by Boeing. I also feel that it is deliberately chosen by Boeing to convey a not quite correct impression. The impression that the new series exists in a more concrete way than it does in reality. The first product sold was in 2017 and the first completed product used was in 2016. So what happened in 2011? I think what happened was that the first public announcement about this development project was announced. Probably it was also connected to an increase om spending rate on the project. But that decision most probably came a couple of weeks before the announcement. So my sugestion is The Boeing 737 MAX series was publically announced on August 30, 2011. --Ettrig (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Launched is generally used in the industry and not just a deliberate Boeing thing as suggested, it also marks the transition and commitment to a properly formed production project rather then the earlier development phase. It is covered in the article body but I dont think "Publically announced" is correct and Launched is a fairly standard term, perhaps if you really dont like launched it could be something like "Boeing committed to building the Boeing 737 MAX series on August 20, 2011." but is far more chunky than the simple launched so I would suggest leave it alone. MilborneOne (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You may be correct that launched is used that way in the aerospace industry. But Wikipedia is for the general public and needs to use the words as they are generally understood. I think we agree that it signifies a start. It could be the start of a project, as the intention here. But the article is about a product, and then the closest interpretation is the start of availability on the market. I stumbled on the word in Medium (website). Here the start of availability is clearly the intended meaning, as can also be seen in a referenced article in The Guardian. --Ettrig (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The launch opens the orderbook and the first orders came in simultaneously. A project could be known before that, like the never launched Boeing 7J7. The same word is also used for other products, like cars or smartphones, with delayed or uncertain availability.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the launch opens the orderbook, but in most industries (and for consumer products in particular, since you cite cars and smartphones) this carries a strong implication that the product is fully developed and available for more-or-less immediate delivery. In the aircraft industry, development is far from complete at this stage and deliveries are several years away. To avoid the confusion for lay readers, I suggest a change to "The 737 MAX program was launched...". Rosbif73 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Both references about cars and phones use the word in the way that I suggest. They say that the new model will be launched and that it has been announced. The models have clearly come rather far in development. Still they are not described as already launched.--Ettrig (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It is evident from this discussion that launch is not sufficiently informative as used here.--Ettrig (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What we have overlooked so far is that Boeing has a two-stage decision process before embarking on production of a new model, the first being "authority to offer" (for sale) and the second "authority to launch".[1] For there to have been 496 order commitments on 30 August 2011, this date must correspond to the "launch", with the "offer" having been at some earlier date not given in the references. "Launch" is used this way on dozens of Wikipedia aircraft articles, I'll revert to that. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not OK to use a common word with a specialized meaning in aircraft articles. It is obvious that most readers will not make the intended interpreration. Earlier in this discussion two references to usage of launch for other types of products, as support for the use here. But the referenced texts use the word in a different way, referring to launch as something that will happen later. --Ettrig (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Wictionary says To release; to put onto the market for sale. It seems that the usage here is not directly incorrect. It hinges on the meaning of for sale. It seems that it was possible to order the plane. But it was not possible to get it. It would not be possible for many years. So for the reader who is not used to the peculiar use of this word in the aircraft business, this use of the word launch is misleading.--Ettrig (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that a reader unfamiliar with the aviation use of the term, but who goes on to look at the rest of the paragraph, will soon understand what is meant. But if you insist, how about "Development and production of this 737 series was formally launched on August 30, 2011"? Rosbif73 (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is what happened to me. A tension arose in my brain. I wanted to avoid that that happens to other readers. Development was ongoing, production was not to begin in many years. The normal meaning of launch is that it starts now. The text should tell the reader what was actually happening. I think what was happening was that Boeing announced that a large ramp-up of design efforts had recently been decided, the more intensive project was running and it was now possible to order the product. This implies that they intended to produce it sometime in the future. But given the extended time difference, they were probably not even planning the production yet. I think the problem is caused by the aircraft industry deliberately trying to make planned product seem more imminent than they are. Our task is to tell the reader where in the product life cycle the product is. The language used in commercial announcements may not be the best vehicle for this. The article on product life cycle does not contain the word launch.--Ettrig (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not a question of trying to make things seem more imminent than they are, just a question of scale. An airliner development program will cost literally billions of dollars, taking the best part of a decade to complete, and sales will only amount to a few hundred (or at best a few thousand in rare cases like the 737 or A320). When compared with consumer products, terms like "launch" inevitably take on slightly different meanings as a result.

Admittedly, the sentence in question is in the lead, so it is important for it to be understandable to a broad readership per WP:EXPLAINLEAD. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the current phrasing is perfectly acceptable even for general readers not familiar with the aviation industry. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no inevitability at all here. Launching a product normally means putting it on the market. It cannot be put on the market when it doesn't exist. There is no principle at all that says that long development cycles lead to earlier launches. The central take away from this discussion is that the word launch used in the way here (early in the article text) is far too vague to be sufficiently informative. Our task is to tell the reader about the history of the product, when it was at which stage in the product cycle. According to you it could mean anything between early in development and ready for delivery. In this case it meant early in development. The date we are talking about was 6 years before first delivery. You mention up to a decade for the full project. If we assume 9 years in this case, they were 1/3 of the total project. Ergo, telling the reader that it was launched does not provide the expected information. When we try to use informative words in this discussion there is immediate disagreement. This underlines the non-informative nature of the word. --Ettrig (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The referenced text is a press release from Boeing. Being a press release we should expect it to be rather persuasive than informative. The use of launch in this way fits that expectation. It conveys an impression of forceful action and imminence of implementation. There is very little concrete information in the text. No date for planned delivery. Nothing about the size of the development effort. Not even a mentioning of the product name that is the title of this Wikipedia article. The name MAX does not occur in the press release. So taken by itself, this press release does not even support the statement. How do we know that the variant with this new engine is the one that was later called ... MAX? --Ettrig (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, launch is the WP:COMMONNAME. Many different products, not related to aviation or engineering, are launched. Gah4 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect statement in the article

I suggest someone tweak the following statement, which is not quite accurate, currently in the 3rd par. of section "1.2 Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash."

"A preliminary report on the crash indicated the pilots initially followed the correct Boeing procedure for shutting down MCAS and manually trimming the rear stabilizer."

The pilots did not carry out that procedure correctly and the Prelim Report does not actually say that they did. They failed to disengage the auto-throttles, which is step # 3 of the runaway stabilizer checklist. Here is what the Prelim Rpt says:

"The crew performed runaway stabilizer checklist and put the stab trim cutout switch to cutout position and confirmed that the manual trim operation was not working." [pg 25]

Since TO thrust was never reduced and just about everyone agrees the high speed of the aircraft, which even exceeded VMO, was a powerful factor in that accident, I am thinking it critically important for all relevant Wiki articles to ensure all statements about the pilots actions are as accurate as they can be. EditorASC (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no A preliminary report on the crash indicated the pilots initially followed the correct Boeing procedure for shutting down MCAS and manually trimming the rear stabilizer in this article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. It is in the "Boeing 737 MAX groundings" article. When I went to post my comments on that Talk Page, the —RMCD bot gave this instruction:

"There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Boeing 737 MAX which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:31, 25 May 2019"

I frankly don't understand why I shouldn't post my comments on that talk page, but since the powers that be said I should post it here, I did it their way. EditorASC (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• That's just a notice about a move discussion here. That does not mean you couldn't post on the other talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Your interpretation would make sense to me if it were not for the fact that I DID post on that page before posting on this one. When I did that, the BOT told me to go to this page instead as I was posting on the wrong page:

"There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Boeing 737 MAX which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

EditorASC (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• OK, I understand this now. But I don't understand the excessive persistence of the bot. Do like WP:IGNORE suggests if this happens again. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Your advice is greatly appreciated. First time I have heard of WP:IGNORE. EditorASC (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, with 70% of participants opposing a move. The nominator submitted this move request just 11 weeks after the previous one and is reminded that the policy states: "Successful move re-requests generally take place at least three months after the previous one." Fuzheado | Talk 10:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• Boeing 737 MAX → Boeing 737 Max
• Boeing 737 MAX groundings → Boeing 737 Max groundings

– Per WP:TITLETM: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)". Here is a non-exhaustive list of reliable sources that use the spelling "Max": BBC Bloomberg CNBC CNN The Guardian The Hill Los Angeles Times New York Times NPR Seattle PI Sydney Morning Herald The Times of London USA Today Washington Post Calidum 04:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reopening comment. There is nothing wrong or out of process with opening a new RM like this 2 or 3 months after a previous close of no consensus. So I have reopened this RM as valid. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  22:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Agree Makes sense to move following guidelines at WP:TITLETM. LK (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Agree per guidelines, common usage and personal preference. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   04:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• This was discussed before, and the result was the current Boeing 737 MAX title.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The result last time was no consensus. So it's worth more discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support sticking to guidelines, avoiding decorative allcaps. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as this was only discussed a few months ago with no consensus, please read the long discussion not that far away about MAX not being an upper case version of max so the quoted title guidelines dont apply. MilborneOne (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose with the same reason as last time: Just because some reliable sources write it the wrong way should not mean that that becomes the correct way. There are also reliable sources that do spell it as "MAX": The Wall Street Journal Reuters. Also notably the FAA. WP:TITLETM applied to this specific case seems to just say if the media write it incorrectly you should do it too... Anyways I can see that some find this just to be an opinion, and honestly in the end it are just 2 letters. But for me the official designation by the manufacturer should be used, since this is not a case of styling but it is a name. Redalert2fan (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - there's an article called "Aircraft name groundings"? Shouldn't that have been "grounding of....". Or "response to aircraft name crashes"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:TTM: "examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner"....and: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official', as long as this is a style already in widespread use". I realize independent official sources like FAA, etc use MAX, but I believe the majority of mainstream media RS use a style that "most closely resembles standard English" (initial capital only). Because MAX is not an acronym, we are not obligated to reproduce the capitalization. The caps are "the preference of the trademark owner," which the guideline says we can disregard, while the policy (WP:TITLETM ) says: "follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark." MAX does appear to be the official name, but our rules say we are expected to use standard English, not the company's style preference. DonFB (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Talk:Boeing 737 MAX#Requested move 11 March 2019. WP:TITLETM doesn't apply here since plenty of official independent sources (FAA, CAA, ALPA, AOPA) and journalistic sources (AP, WSJ, etc.) use all caps. We just went through this six weeks ago, nothing has changed since then. Pinging participants in the previous discussion (my apologies if I left anyone out or pinged anyone who already participated this time): @Aeroplanepics0112, Alaney2k, Arnoutf, Atomicdragon136, BarrelProof, BilCat, Bohbye, Brandmeister, BrxBrx, Davey2010, DeFacto, East Anglian Regional, Eilidhmax, EoRdE6, Estoy Aquí, Ex nihil, Fnlayson, Funplussmart, Fuzheado, GCunknown, Georgian, Hunterm267, Jamesday, Joeyconnick, Kestreltail, Omega13a, Optakeover, Pseudonymous Rex, Rogerd, Rosbif73, SchoolBusesC2, Technophant, Tgalos90, Trivialist, TypoBoy, Vbscript2, Whoop whoop pull up, Wugapodes, WWGB, Ythlev, ZLEA, and Zm14:. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support by above. Ythlev (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the nomination and as supported by WP:TITLETM and MOS:TMSTYLE, and exemplified in Mini (marque), an article about the car that BMW call "MINI". "MAX" may be the way Boeing choose to stylise the name, but normal English, as evidenced in a multitude of secondary references, is to write "Max". -- DeFacto (talk). 14:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the previous RM, OFFICIAL should take precedence. –Davey2010^Talk 14:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The manufacturer calls it 737 MAX [2]. That's the official name. Nothing can trump that. WP:COMMONNAME. WWGB (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010 and WWGB: using the official name only means using the official spelling and doesn't imply using the official stylisation too, so the proposed new name is fine as the spelling is per the official spelling. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The all-caps would appear to be the official stylisation so as such OFFICIAL and COMMONNAME trump anything here. –Davey2010^Talk 16:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: "official stylisation" isn't the same as "official name", and the capitalisation isn't relevent to common name either, just the spelling and word spacing. Unless the "MAX" part is an acronym, the official name and common name translate to "Boeing 737 Max" per MOS:CAPS. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I know, Point is they use the caps and so we should too. –Davey2010^Talk 18:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

And the official name for TIME, SONY, IGOR etc isn't used per the guidelines. There is no trumping here. Lazz_R 16:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe that's because sources use lowecase? Anyway OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a compelling arguement. –Davey2010^Talk 18:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose even if a thousand people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake. It's Boeing's aircraft, therefore Boeing's name for the aircraft is correct. While some argue that it is a marketing name, the name is used in most, if not all official sources. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Why are we going over this AGAIN only 6 weeks later? As Ahecht and Redalert2fan said, many RS, including journalists and aviation sources use the Boeing official convention. --rogerd (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support per MOS:TM / MOS:ALLCAPS. I count about 45 sources that are cited in the article that have "Max" in their titles (with mixed case). That is a large number. I see no indication that the all-caps "MAX" is anything other than a promotional styling. The company's self-published material follows the all-caps, as with TIME and SONY Mobile, but we should pay more attention to independent sources. Wikipedia guidelines say to use ordinary English styling in such a situation where the sources are mixed. MOS:ALLCAPS explicitly says to "Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks". This is not even a matter of the name, it is just a matter of whether to use ordinary or promotional styling with capital letters. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Official sources such as the FAA and many others use the all caps style. funplussmart (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:ALLCAPS and BarrelProof. Lazz_R 16:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose As per some previous users mentioned, it is officially capitalized as MAX, and has been registered by FAA with this name. Even though some news media and journalists capitalize it as Max does not mean that it’s the correct name. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 17:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are many reliable media sources that use full upercase: Al Jazeera, CNN (used interchangeably), Forbes, Marketwatch, Reuters, The Seattle Times, Time, and The Wall Street Journal, to name several. The language of the policy guideline referenced in the justification is up for interpretation: i.e., do all internet sources count equally, and if not, which sources should be prioritized? (Aviation media, associations, and organizations; or the general press?) I cannot see that conversation reaching a consensus. We should also keep in mind that guidelines are not law (see WP:5P5). GEORGIAN^{Go Dogs} 17:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You asked which sources should be prioritized. There is a good answer for that – we should prioritize the sources that are independent and reliable. The sources cited in an article should also be those sources, or at least should be reliable if not independent, so to observe that 45 sources that are cited in the article use the proposed styling is evidence for the proposal to use ordinary English styling. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • You bring up a good point, and I understand your reasoning. There are other sources cited in the article, though, that use full uppercase, several of which come from the media organizations I mentioned. I'd say all of those satisfy both WP:IRS criteria. My first question was more of a rhetorical one, but I think it's of note that the vast majority of aviation media uses the current styling, in addition to a good amount of press coverage and the manufacturer itself (although I am less inclined to give too much consideration to that). My vote still stands. GEORGIAN^{Go Dogs} 01:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the exact same reason I had in the last discussion about this exact thing less than 3 months ago. Why is this being discussed again? Nothing has changed since then. 737 MAX is the official name, the trademarked name, the name used by a decent number of reliable sources (no hard numbers, just an observation from a scan of the first few page of Google News on the topic), and the name used by official aviation regulation agencies (i.e. the FAA). --HunterM267 ^talk 18:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• My opinion hasn’t changed. I still think the page should be moved. However, I respect Fuzheado’s closure of the previous discussion and don’t think enough time hasn’t passed to be able to expect a new consensus to form. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the exact same reason I had in the last discussion. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) has not materially changed since then. Therefore, the proper name of this article remains "Boeing 737 MAX". Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 01:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose We use common names. Unless it has changed, I think the spelling was a toss-up. So, it's okay either way, I think. We should not be swayed by trademarking, etc. over policy and consistency. That said, I think the use of MAX, especially in the grounding title, is better. It's clear the title is about the product named 737 MAX. (Not that there is a thing called "Max grounding", but the title kind of could mean that) Also, the MAX all-caps kind of indicates a bit about Boeing's headspace/marketing about their product. Which I do think is an important part about the tragedies. Alaney2k (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Didn't we just decide this a few weeks ago? Nothing has changed. Eilidhmax (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for all the reasons set out in Talk:Boeing 737 MAX#Requested move 11 March 2019. Nothing has changed since then. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Endless nonsense move requests, can never satisfy them. At least bother checking prior move requests? What has changed? Well played Wikipedia. 01:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohbye (talk • contribs)
• Strong support The relevant policy is WP:TITLETM. It isn't a question of how the manufacturer styles it -- that's marketing. It isn't a question of whether anybody copies their nonstandard style. The policy is to use standard capitalization for trademarks unless the preponderance of reliable sources does otherwise. They don't. TypoBoy (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. A (strong) preponderance of reliable sources including regulators, major airlines, aviation-focused news media, major travel blogs, and industry groups such as ALPA and AOPA do indeed use the correct MAX name. I've cited several below (links are available in my comments on the previous request from a few weeks ago.) Mainstream news outlets are more inconsistent, but they're also much less reliable in matters of aviation. Vbscript2 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:IGNORE, and official sources (Boeing, FAA, and AOPA) spell it MAX. - Gorkypickeral (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Once again, I think that renaming this page is wrong thing to do. As per above by Gorkypickeral, offical sources should be the best place to see how a name is spelled. I think this secton of this talk page will close on Sunday this week. GCunknown (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose for all of the same reasons I listed in the previous discussion on this a few weeks ago. 737 MAX is the official name of the aircraft. This is the name used by the FAA, which issued the type certificate. It's the name that nearly all sources that are reputable in matters of aviation use, including the US Federal Aviation Administration, the UK Civil Aviation Authority, the Air Line Pilots Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Aviation Week, Aviation Herald, major travel blogs like The Points Guy, View from the Wing, One Mile at a Time, and airlines that operate the aircraft, such as Southwest, United, Norwegian, Air Canada, and American. Major news organizations are more inconsistent (with plenty of examples available of both capitalizations,) but they also tend to be notoriously unreliable in matters of aviation, especially compared to the more aviation-focuses sources listed here. The strong majority of sources that are reliable in matters of aviation consistently use MAX. Just because some less-reliable journalists incorrectly write it was Max doesn't mean Wiki should be wrong, too. Vbscript2 (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Still Neutral per my vote in the first discussion. WP:TITLETM states the guideline very clearly: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". A cursory search on Google for the top 30 hits of "boeing 737 grounding" [3] shows independent sources do not have consensus on the name format. Because of this absence of independent media consensus, my vote is Neutral, however if the Support or Oppose side can demonstrate widespread use of "Max" or "MAX" in independent news sources respectively, their rationales would be justified. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• After reading the comments above, I have changed my vote to Oppose per FAA and AOPA which ties in with Boeing's choice of capitalization. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose It looks like all the Boeing web pages use MAX, I also notice that the IBM page is upper case. Also, note that max is not an English word, though often short for maximum. If the name was 737 MAXIMUM, I might agree that it be changed, but it isn't. We don't know the exact reason it was named MAX, and I believe we don't need to know that. It might, for example, be an acronym for something we don't know. Gah4 (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move review for Boeing 737 MAX

It should be noted that on 21:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC), Calidum filed a Move review of Boeing 737 MAX. Those interested in the issue may want to examine the request. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The ongoing move review: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2019_June#Boeing_737_MAX

• Closed move request discussion: Talk:Boeing_737_MAX/Archive_2#Requested_move_25_May_2019
• Previous move request discussion: Talk:Boeing_737_MAX/Archive_1#Requested_move_11_March_2019

Supporting arguments are based on policies – WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM and MOS:ALLCAPS being the most relevant –, and opposing arguments mostly refer to the previous move request without consensus, the manufacturer's stylization (explicitly disregarded by MOS:TM and WP:OFFICIAL), and WP:COMMONNAME that has nothing to say about capitalization. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   21:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Outdated Claims Regarding 737 Max 7 Operators

WestJet certainly won't be taking any Max-7s in 2019. It's been very well known for years that they've pushed them back to at least 2021 and will likely cancel them entirely or convert them to other variants. There are some here who enjoy knowingly keeping inaccurate info in the article because they think they're making a point about following Wikipedia's rules. All they're actually doing is willfully making the article wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkirvan (talk • contribs) 05:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The section says "Entry into service with WestJet is to follow delivery of five airplanes expected in 2019." with a WestJet Q3 2017 ref, 1.5 year ago. If you have a more recent ref, bring it. Nobody wants to follow WestJet fleet management day by day. You should not make any assumptions, and sign your comments with four tildes, ~.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

WestJet is only mentioned because they used to be the launch customer many years ago. Since they no longer are the launch customer and aren't likely to buy the Max 7 at all there is no need to "update" anything. The false information should simply be struck, or moved to a new article titled "List of companies who thought about buying some 737s, but then didn't". That it continues to stand says a lot about the attitudes here, particularly Fnlayson who frequently reverts edits that aim to eliminate falsehoods. It is better for the article to be shorter than demonstrably false. At least it is to 99.99% of the world's population, but not apparently to those who take editing wikipedia super seriously. Pkirvan (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

If it is demonstrably false, please do bring the demonstration! Not bringing any ref is useless time spent.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

A simple Google search for "westjet 737 max 7 deferred" will bring up plenty of references for you. Again, it says a lot that on a high traffic page like this one people are happy to leave false information up for months after its pointed out because they think they are making a point about Wikipedia edit rules or whatever. If you have pride in your work, you check your sources and you don't let falsehoods stand. Here's the facts- there is no reliable source on who the -7 launch customer is or when it will launch. Therefore having a fictional paragraph on it is silly and misleading. Pkirvan (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, neither you nor anyone else is following your "Responsibility for providing citations" reference. It clearly states "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Ergo if I take this material down and Fnlayson or yourself restore it, you, not me, have to provide a reliable source (not an obsolete ancient one). Pkirvan (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Just cite a ref if it's easy.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pkirvan: Rather than arguing about whose responsibility it is to provide a cite, I've found one and added it! However, the information is nearly a year old and possibly outdated, so a more recent cite would still be appreciated. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Rosbif73, I'm glad someone is interested in improving this article. However, we've still completely lost sight of what that paragraph was supposed to be about. It was supposed to convey info about when the plane will enter into service, not to provide a list of former buyers who cancelled / delayed their orders. If the entry into service is unknown, which it is, the article should simply say so and set aside the details of who cancelled what. The sentence listing the current buyers is fine. Pkirvan (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

There's more to it than that. The cancellations aren't directly related to entry into service, sure, but IMO the information is important to keep as tell-tale signs that the market is no longer interested in these short variants (the A319 doesn't sell either), preferring the A220 and E2. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Design section - improvements and deteriorations

The article's "Design" section starts with a header "Aerodynamic Improvements". To be NPOV, shouldn't there also be a header "Aerodynamic Deterioration" on the same hierarchical level because of the well-documented 737 MAX design changes that deteriorate significantly its aerodynamic properties, i.e. its tendency for an aerodynamic stall (changed center of gravity etc.)? It was clearly not an unintended, accidental, or unimportant aerodynamic design change of Boeing, only the problematic consequences of this design change have obviously not been intended. To be clear, I am not propagating any adding up or total assessments of the new design.--Betternews (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The Engines and MCAS subsections cover the stall problem already. You seem to be suggesting to repeat the content in other subsections. the subsection wording has been modified to state "changes" instead of "improvements". -Fnlayson (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Your "quick fix" doesn't seem to solve the issue. In the aerodynamics section, there is still no mention of the new 737 MAX aerodynamic stall properties even though they are quite disruptive and well documented aerodynamic properties. For me there is no rush. Should I try to fix it? --Betternews (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

To me tt seems without a question that stall characteristics should be discussed in the section on aerodynamics.2601:280:4B00:590D:49DD:4267:E71:58E6 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Root of the software design problem

Excellent analysis: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

-》 Let us add it to a couple of articles, including this one, BPO and software design. Zezen (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ignore as it seems to be an anti-contractor rant rather than any evident that Indian sub-contractors messed up. MilborneOne (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I basically agree with MilborneOne; see my comment in Talk for the 'Groundings' article. DonFB (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Inherent unstable airframe

I am not an aircraft expert, but should there not be an section on the inherent instability of the aerodynamic characteristics of this type. I believe this is a departure of the norm for passenger aircraft which I believe are usually designed in such manner that they will return to stable flight instead of run-away.

See also http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/is-the-boeing-737-max-worth-saving.html and https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2019/04/02/mit-expert-highlights-divergent-condition-caused-by-737-max-engine-placement/#32135b4d40aa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4b00:590d:3459:5706:84ba:39a1 (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Australian 60 Minutes documentary on the accidents here; [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.241 (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

As well as I know it, though I suspect others know it better, the MAX has appropriate Longitudinal static stability, the usual meaning of stability in flying airplanes. Under some conditions, without MCAS, it behaves differently from other 737 models, increasing the possibility of a stall. This is different from the above meaning of stability. Gah4 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I understood that in certain circumstances that are within the normal flight envelope, e.g. take-off with high power output of the engines and significant nose-up, a run-away pitch can occur. Meaning that with the airplane pitching higher the pitching moment increases, this was at least the description in the nymag.com article above. I was hoping that some resident experts on airplane stability and aerodynamics could weight in on this. 2601:280:4B00:590D:D81E:985E:698F:3F17 (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Disclaimer: half of my college degree is a bachelor of science in aerospace engineering, so I've had at least the undergraduate course in stability. A couple of important points need to be realized:

• Static stability is like a spring; when deformed, a statically stable system wants to go back to the original position. If it wants to deform further, that is unstable. The way the airframe and MCAS have been described (increasing pitch) is the definition of longitudinal static instability.
• What really counts for airplane safety is not just static stability, but longitudinal dynamic stability. In order for an airplane to be safe to fly, it must be dynamically stable; i.e. a nose pitch-up must result in a chain reaction of forces which in fact dampen out the oscillations and cause the nose in fact to return to the stable position; I was taught in college that static stability isn't good enough.
• The article linked above explicitly states that the 737 MAX is dynamically unstable. Jeff Wise is scientifically educated and seems to have credibility as a science and technology journalist. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

inherent: existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute. (ref) The 737 Max airframe is only unstable in small - albeit critical - part of the flight envelope, that is slow, high-AoA configurations, sources refer mostly to tight turns. I haven't found more reliable info: everybody is just repeating the Boeing description, that obviously downplays the aerodynamic issues, or makes speculations (not their fault: misinformation leads to speculations).
Tl;dr: It is only unstable close to a stall, in turns and possibly takeoff (opinion: when it really matters). This seems to be how most media sources and many experts describe it. Inherently unstable is an overreach, coming from for-effect media. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   06:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

What does Tl;dr: mean? JustinTime55 (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Probably "Too long; didn't read", see WP:TLDR. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A number of international aviation agencies such as the UK CAA require an aircraft not to pitch-up as it approaches the stall, as this gives the pilot very little chance to prevent a stall occurring, and in fact actually causes the aircraft, if left alone, perhaps due to a moment's inattention, to stall itself. This has long been a regulatory requirement and is the reason that UK-registered Boeing 727's had to be fitted with a stick-pusher, as in the case of T-tailed rear-engined aircraft the aeroplane may enter a deep stall with fatal results as occurred to BAC One-Eleven G-ASHG and the HS Trident accidents to G-ARPY and G-ARPI.

The tendency to pitch-up at the stall is an inherent characteristic of some highly-swept wing airliners, but not in the original 737, so it would appear that the change in engine and installation geometry may have caused this to manifest itself in the 737 Max.

The requirement is a non-trivial one, as all the accidents mentioned above were 100% fatal, and G-ARPI had been carrying 112 passengers and 6 crew when it occurred.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.163 (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Passenger Compensation

BBC News item on Lion Air crash victims "Families 'cheated of Boeing crash compensation'" here; [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.163 (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

If the article is moved

It is looking like this article will be moved per WP:TITLETM. If it is moved, should we clarify in the article that 737 MAX is the official name of the aircraft? - ZLEA _T\^C 13:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to question that "looking like it will". See the next topic, where the outcome is only clear to those biased in a favoured direction. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You may have to move it anyway - BBC News report Boeing ditches 737 Max name on new Ryanair plane here: [6]

... parked 737 Max aircraft awaiting delivery to Ryanair are marked 737-8200— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.163 (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A new name for a single variant of the plane does not necessarily mean that the entire line of MAXs will be renamed. - ZLEA _T\^C 10:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

And MAX has never been the official name just a marketing name, official they are "737-8" and "737-9". As ZLEA has said the Ryanair aircraft are a different sub-variant with extra seats. MilborneOne (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The Max 200 is a max 8, but with more seats, also having a extra door. Its boeings answer to the A321neo ACF CZ3699 (talk)

Boeing may have ‘unknowingly’ misled regulators about crash-linked software

"The Boeing internal messages raised questions about the performance of the so-called MCAS anti-stall system that has been tied to the two fatal crashes in five months. The messages are between the Max’s then chief technical pilot, Mark Forkner, and another Boeing pilot, the sources said, and raised questions about the MCAS’s performance in the simulator in which he said it was “running rampant”." -- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/18/boeing-may-have-unknowingly-misled-regulators-about-crash-linked-software — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:984A:F200:0:0:0:8EA (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Groundings

I have transcluded the introduction from Boeing 737 MAX groundings into this article's section Boeing 737 MAX Worldwide groundings. This achieves the following:

• Reduces the length of this section, which has been marked as overlong.
• Allows the overlength comment to be removed
• Ensures that the two articles Boeing 737 MAX and Boeing 737 MAX groundings are always coordinated and up to date and eited only in one place. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Replacement airliner

According to sources cited the replacement of 737 MAX Boeing deliberated back in 2014 would be Boeing's NSA (New Small Airplane) or FSA (Future Small Airplane), not Boeing's NMA. So I removed the link to the NMA article. --Now wiki (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

According to other sources cited in Boeing 737 § 737 replacement and in the NMA article, the NMA at least partly targets the same market segment as the MAX 10 and the A321neo, and is in that sense a replacement for the upper end of the 737 range. The FSA would of course be a more direct replacement for the smaller MAX variants, but we don't yet have a Future Small Airplane article (nor do I think one is justified for the time being). Rosbif73 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Back in 2014, Boeing talked about to replace the 737 MAX by 2030, OTOH Boeing "always" insists that the NMA would EIS by 2025. The timeline differs by five years apart. Furthermore, NMA would, according to various publications, be quite a bit more expensive than Boeing's 737. Therefore, firstly, I seriously doubt the NMA was what Jim McNerney had in mind when he spoke about at Abu Dhabi, secondly, it would be hard for Boeing to target the NMA as a replacement of 737 MAX 10 for its customers, last but not least, Boeing didn't start to look into stretching the MAX 9 (which became the MAX 10) over a year after 2014, how plausible was it that the company had a replacement in mind as early as 2014? --Now wiki (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

airliners.net forums are more relevant for speculation.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Incidents and Accidents

I honestly think that the paragraphs before the one about JT610 should be moved to the grounding page. The updates about the groundings don’t really belong there, only thing should be the paragraphs about JT610 and ET302 CZ3699 (talk)

Comment for archiving since no date and no response so far. Redalert2fan (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Orders and deliveries

Template: Boeing 737 MAX orders and deliveries graph does not build properly here but does on its native page and where used elsewhere. Can somebody who understands Wiki graphs have a look, please? Ex nihil ^(talk) 11:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems to look fine on my end, it shows up and I don't see any differences between in the article and its native page. (Chrome on Windows 10) --Redalert2fan (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You are right Redalert2fan. Seems to work now, hasn't for several weeks. I tried three changes, none seem to work. I deleted two noinclude tags and last thing I did was delete the note between the first graph that rendered and the second that didn't. Both seemed to fail at the time. In the past, I have noted a time lag between chanhging a template and the change showing in the transclusion. I have no idea how that works. I am also on Chrome W10. Ex nihil ^(talk) 15:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

House transportation committee: Boeing's 'culture of concealment' led to fatal 737 Max crashes

per https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/06/boeing-culture-concealment-fatal-737-max-crashes-report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:984A:F200:0:0:0:8EA (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Covered in much detail in Boeing 737 MAX certification Shencypeter (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Propose moving Boeing 737 MAX to Boeing 737-8

According to sources, Boeing has renamed the plane toe Boeing 737-8. I propose that the page be moved to a page titled "Boeing 737-8". UnknownLegacy (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)UnknownLegacyUnknownLegacy (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that Boeing might use MAX and dash-8 interchangeably. Ryan Air's 200-seater is designated as 737-8200 and that had caused a lot of media reaction also. We have to wait until the aircraft returns to service and what ends up on the safety cards. (SWA tried to share safety cards and people got upset they "flew" on a grounded jet) Shencypeter (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Boeing has always referred to the aircraft as the "737 MAX 8" or "737-8" – but this designation covers just one variant in the 737 MAX family. The family also includes the longer MAX 9 (737-9), and there are also -7 and -10 variants planned, as well as minor variants such as the -8200 mentioned by Shencypeter. Read Boeing 737 MAX § Variants for details. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Relevance of Southwest Airlines considering A220

Shencypeter has questioned the relevance of my addition regarding Southwest Airlines' announcement that they may choose the A220 over the 737 MAX 7.

If this had been almost any other airline I wouldn't have included it, but Southwest is the largest operator of the 737 and has over 400 737-700s in its fleet. If it goes with Airbus, it will effectively be sounding the death knoll for the MAX 7. I've expanded the text slightly, but left the {{relevance}} tag until we've had time to discuss this. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Rosbif73, A220 selection by Southwest would be an important turn in the 737MAX history.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Understood, but no citations suggest that the A220 would displace all potential MAX 7 orders, most other airlines operate a salt and pepper fleet. It'd be the first time Southwest is even using Airbus/Bombardier aircraft but that's why it's more relevant on the airline article. To include it here, we must provide the context. Shencypeter (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

[7] directly lists points made by Southwest's CEO and COO. In particular, Southwest expects to want about a 50-50 split between 140–150 seaters (A220 or MAX 7) and 175 seaters (MAX 8), so that's a a huge order in the balance. Admittedly, there is no clear statement that if they order the A220 they would drop the MAX 7, but that seems to be the general assumption in all the sources I've looked at.

What additional context do you think is needed, beyond the existing ... to replace its fleet of over 400 737-700s ... (emphasis added)? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

There is now a section for Orders and deliveries. It could be expanded to Orders, deliveries, and cancellations, in which case large cancellations could be indicated. I am not so sure about discussions of cancellations not actually official. Gah4 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The word alternative suggests total replacement, at "In October 2020, Southwest announced that it was considering the Airbus A220 as an 'alternative'..." I would be fine if it read Southwest was considering a mix of A220s and MAX 7's to renew its aging fleet of 737-700s. Cheers! Shencypeter (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

needed

There is a recent edit indicating that MCAS may not have been needed. Seat belts in cars are not needed if you never crash into anything, but sometimes people do. It would be nice to know, and have a WP:RS describing, how easy or hard it is to stall an airplane, and how much easier or harder it is for a 737MAX without MCAS. It would seem that Boeing and/or the FAA should know this. Not being a pilot, I suspect that if pilots know to expect it, they can make corrections when needed. The idea for MCAS is that they didn't have to know, or at least not more than 737NG. Gah4 (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This assessment was provided by the European counterpart of the FAA (EASA), maybe the article can start from there. The pitch-up tendency might be remote, but the Angle of attack sensors are much more likely to fail, and MCAS would be disabled.Shencypeter (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The text I added says that the MAX would have been stable without MCAS. The article cited as a reference[8] gives all the details. In particular, the EASA Executive Director is quoted as saying that "We also pushed the aircraft to its limits during flight tests, assessed the behavior of the aircraft in failure scenarios, and could confirm that the aircraft is stable and has no tendency to pitch-up even without the MCAS" and the FAA Administrator that the FAA had "gone back and looked at the airplane with the stall characteristics with and without the current MCAS system. And the stall characteristics are acceptable in either case." I think that's pretty clear... Rosbif73 (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I read the article. Even before reading it, I was thinking about rental cars. When I drive a rental car, I expect it to drive different from my home car. Especially in the first minutes, I am a little more careful with it, to get used to how it drives. The article actually compares a car and truck. Someone should tell rental car companies about this. It would be really nice to have a car that would drive exactly like a (selectable) other car. I could turn them knob, and then not have to think about the difference. (Mostly just kidding.) The idea was to have the MAX fly the same as the NG, so a pilot could fly one in the morning, and the other in the evening, and that requires MCAS. I suspect that a small amount of simulator training would also have solved the problem. As with rental cars, pilots would learn the difference. I suspect after a short time, pilots would do this without any added thought. I believe that there are some (unreliable) sources that say that the MAX is unstable, but as the article says, it isn't. Note that a stable airplane can still be steered in to the ground, or stalled. So, yes, the stall characteristics are acceptable, as long as you don't believe you are flying the NG. I am pretty sure that the costs to Boeing now are more than the cost would have been to train pilots of the difference. Gah4 (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Orders and deliveries.

The template need updated as it is used on a couple articles. I’m lost on how the current numbers fit with the data on Boeing’s website. Also, the link that is attached to the template needs updated as Boeing has changed their website. Before I go messing with it, would someone else that has worked on the numbers before like to take a shot at it? Like I said, the math does not add up to me give the data on their site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackBird1008 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Done 87.200.56.102 (talk) 13:15, 16 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:

• 2021-11-05 MAX 8200 011 - Copy.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Images

most images in this page is not showing the correct engines Leap 1B, which is deformed at the bottom 42.188.174.66 (talk) 42.188.174.66 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Um, no, they're all correct. It's the -700/-800/-900 series nacelles that have the pronounced cheeks for the engine accessories, the MAX nacelles are more rounded. Acroterion (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are the groundings not mentioned in the intro paragraph?

They should be, many people come to this page to confirm it was this airframe type that was involved. This feels like astroturfing by Boeing… 2A02:8109:B6BF:9344:6CDE:28EF:6A96:89F9 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It's in the third paragraph of the lead. -- Vaulter 16:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The third paragraph thoroughly explains the fatal crashes, the grounding, and the recertification. Doesn't seem like a whitewash to me. Carguychris (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Crash, not accident

I'm tired of using the word "accident" regarding transportation system fatalities. It's a loaded, political word used to dismiss deaths and injury as unavoidable and/or unpredictable. We need to stop using the word "accident" throughout Wikipedia regarding transportation deaths. It's already being phased out in news publishing best practices.

• https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/There-Are-No-Accidents/Jessie-Singer/9781982129668
• https://crashnotaccident.com/
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120417/
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/11/17/crash-not-accident-better-road-safety-reporting-could-save-lives-show-researchers/?sh=773c1b6641ba

It's extremely frustrating that this is still being debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeharding (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. BilCat (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

continue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft)#Crash,_not_accident--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The term "accident" is appropriate in most cases

The term "accident" remains appropriate unless and until an official investigation has concluded intent, e.g. to sabotage or crash the airplane, or commit a terrorist attack. A "transportation system" is a vague, imprecise, and largely undefinable term. In most cases, the term accident is used, not because an accident is unavoidable or unpredictable (in fact most accidents are both avoidable and predictable, hindsight being 20/20), but because most accidents are comprised of chains of less significant events that combine to produce a bad but nevertheless unintentional outcome. Tpkatsa (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Linking to articles with paywalls

Footnote 222 contains a link to an article behind a paywall. It's really frustrating when you're trying to research something to have to deal with paywalls. Fortunately an article on web.archive.org was also linked, but this isn't always the case. Has the practice of linking to articles behind paywalls been looked at? Tpkatsa (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hero image is in poor taste

Why are we using the image of a carrier-specific, accident-involved airframe as the hero image when better, more planform-centric images exist? Seems suboptimal. 2603:8080:F803:62F1:F30A:99D4:E4D8:C7B2 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

"hero image"?? What's that? BilCat (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

And see #Infobox image section above, where it was agreed the Ethiopian image was the best of the submitted ones, and your preferred image was rejected. BilCat (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "infobox" image – been years since I've edited anything on Wikipedia, so my lingo is a bit off. And fair enough; I didn't even realize Talk pages were a thing, so I suppose the image being what it is is well-reasoned enough for me. 2603:8080:F803:62F1:F30A:99D4:E4D8:C7B2 (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

An aircraft's operator and history are not usually factors we consider when choosing an infobox image. The accident aircraft, ET-AVJ, was still a 737 MAX, and the image is one of the best we have of the type. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like this is still an issue. I think the Air Canada photo the IP added is at a better angle, and the background is good. BilCat (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I added the LOT one, and I'm totally fine with a change, but I agree this particular Ethiopian airframe can come across as in bad taste (not necessarily intentional of course). BTW Ethiopian still operate the type, so I'm also fine with a different Ethiopian MAX, just not that particular airframe. I also like the Air Canada and the Mauritania. — zmm ~talk~ 21:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I still prefer the Ethiopian image. Although it is at a slightly awkward angle, the external features new to the MAX (namely the nacelle chevrons and new winglets) are more noticeable on the Ethiopian aircraft. I don't believe the fact that it is an accident aircraft is as big of a problem as some think, as most readers wouldn't know how to tell one Ethiopian MAX from another. That said, I'm not opposed to changing the infobox image to a non-accident airframe, but I don't think it should be the main reason for such a change. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be the sole reason either, but I find the high angle a bit jarring. And frankly, many readers probably aren't going to notice the chevrons in any of these images at the size they are. Those are better shown in a closeup. BilCat (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't remember it was the particular Ethiopian airframe when proposing it (while I knew this image) but it doesn't matter anyway. It is the best picture of a MAX right now. Chevrons are visible in the thumbnail (as they are white, not black), perfectly clear when the image is clicked, and the split-tip winglet is more striking. The 3/4 views allows a more horizontally compressed picture with more details. The gear is not between positions either. It can change if a better, new one, become available, which will surely come as thousands will be flying soon. (ZLEA& BilCat: I slightly rotated the picture for a more usual angle. Ctrl+refresh if it didn't appear)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

RE "[The Ethiopian] is the best picture of a MAX right now" – going by the image/quality criteria mentioned above under Talk:Boeing_737_MAX#Infobox_image, the LOT airlines photo wins hands down. I don't see anything wrong with being:

1. a special livery (the article is about a plane not an airline)
2. looking right (50/50 chance really, the B727 article for instance as of this writing)
3. and a gray sky

So if we're changing it based on vague aesthetics that aren't judged by Wikimedia Commons standards and instead by feelings (bad taste included—and I understand it wasn't an intentional choice), and assuming no one wants the LOTairlines, then I vote either Air Canada or Mauritania. If there aren't enough votes or the majority don't care, fine by me, really.

What I'm clarifying with this reply is: the crashed plane may not break any MOS rule, but going by subjective looks and not quality standards, then other photos should get a chance a well.— zmm ~talk~ 13:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't Wikimedia Commons, so whatever standards for aircraft infobox images they may have there don't apply here. I think you may be a little biased toward your own work. If I may add my personal opinion, while I complement your photography skills, I don't know that the LOT MAX image "wins hands down". As for the direction the aircraft is facing, the Boeing 727 and 787 are the only Boeing 7x7 airliners facing right (perhaps it's something for another discussion). A vast majority of Boeing 7x7x airliner articles, including all 737 articles, have a left-facing aircraft in the infobox. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not take the LOTairlines photo(!). I simply added it to the article (see earlier discussion for the reasoning). Apart from that clarification, I've said all I wanted to say already. — zmm ~talk~ 16:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Zm14: You didn't explain why you found the LOT picture would be better. The special livery is distracting and cause the viewer to ask himself unnecessary questions ("what airline is that?") instead of understanding the aircraft specificity. The left-pointing attitude (towards the text) is usual and a right-pointing picture would have to be much better to be used (It's the case of the Boeing 727 - and thanks for pointing the 787 main pic change, I didn't saw it). The gray sky is dull, and moreover, the light is dull. A contrasty light is preferable. Those are not vague aesthetics or feelings, they are established and factual.

The Air Canada picture seems less interesting than the Ethiopian one as the aircraft is more sideways, the chevrons are less visible (dark on dark), the specific windshield paint scheme of air canada prevents seeing the 737 filiation, and the gear is in-between positions. The Mauritania Airlines picture does not show well the chevrons, is less dynamic, has the gear down, and the wing is less distinct from the fuselage.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I selected it, as mentioned already, based on 1/ its assessment: c:COM:QI (criteria), 2/ after failing in manually finding a high quality photo. If we're going by mere opinion on how they subjectively look, then I've mentioned two choices. None of the points you mention, nor will any of the points I may mention, contribute toward any of the existing guidelines in WP:Aircontent (apart from being in-flight if possible). — zmm ~talk~ 16:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The assessment process does not mean one image is better than the other, but that one image went through this process. Correct pictures are numerous as presented in the collapsed content in the previous section. WP:aircontent guidelines are scarce, it's our responsibility to pick the most useful picture.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts and would like to take a moment to summarize my position and current situation:

RE "The assessment process does not mean one image is better than the other":

It was a coincidence there was/is(?) only one QI; this removed any bias when selecting to replace the rotated monstrosity—hyperbole for [comedic] effect only; please, please, don't bring it back :)

I chimed in here RE "Looks like this is still an issue". I can empathize with someone not liking it for it being the crash plane. If the consensus is We're happy reverting such future edits, then Ethiopian is fine—it's a bit overexposed and washed out due to haze maybe, but it's fine, but certainly not "the best" :)

If the consensus is it's not worth the trouble, then you know my choices:

1. LOT (see the sentence about the "coincidence")
2. Air Canada (to get the vote moving; I wasn't the first to mention it, and it's a good photo; close-ups in the article deal nicely with the MAX features)
3. Mauritania (my actual favorite, subjectively speaking, among the collection here, LOT included)

— zmm ~talk~ 18:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I pushed the contrast of the Ethiopian picture as you found it washed out due to haze. You already stated your order of preference, but your arguments are still subjective, not objective.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Objectivity is measured against set criteria (e.g. QI criteria), which do not exist here, which is what I've been saying. Someone not liking where the nose is pointed or a paint scheme, is not being objective. 6 persons can flip 6 heads in a row (1 each) and it would still be 50/50. 1 person can deliberately choose 6 heads in a row and say, "No one noticed and brought it up before ergo it's how we do things now."

Do you see my point? The issue at hand now is whether it's We're happy reverting such future edits (RE crash plane) or It's not worth the trouble. Whatever the editors end up settling on, I've stated my "subjective" votes (inc. sticking w/ the Ethiopian); any claim to objectivity is baseless with the current state of guidelines.

And since pointing out what's wrong (RE guidelines) isn't constructive w/o proposing a solution—one way is for WP:AV to promote multiple photos for each model for QI assessment, and to vote among those that meet the QI criteria. (Something for a discussion elsewhere.) — zmm ~talk~ 21:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely worth the trouble to revert undiscussed changes to the infobox image. The image was chosen by a consensus, so any change which goes against the consensus, even if they are acting in good faith, would be disruptive. Also, consensus is not reached through a vote. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll quote you and @BilCat but please bear in mind that I'm assuming good faith in what you wrote, and merely reflecting on what you just wrote regarding consensus.

"The image was chosen by a consensus, so any change which goes against the consensus, even if they are acting in good faith, would be disruptive."

"[I]t was agreed the Ethiopian image was the best of the submitted ones, and your preferred image [the user that added Air Canada?] was rejected."

Those read like We've agreed on Ethiopian, don't change it.

It's very much worth noting that the issue (crash airframe) wasn't brought up prior to the edit(s) in question, so their good faith edit shouldn't be simply discarded for said older discussion. I understand that there is no no-crash-airframes criteria, which is the point of this discussion now. Claiming objectivity when none can exist, is not conducive to it either.

Here's my position: I can see how someone (someones apparently) would not like it for being the crash plane. [Equally] good alternatives do exist that face left and are not a special livery, e.g. the Air Canada—ignoring for now how it came to be always left (chance or design w/o discussion), and ignoring for now how the guidelines can be improved to everyone's benefit, effort and time. — zmm ~talk~ 22:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"Those read like We've agreed on Ethiopian, don't change it." What I said was perfectly in line with WP:CONS. As of now, we have agreed upon the Ethiopian image, so any undiscussed image change would indeed be disruptive. If someone wants the image changed, they need to present an argument for such a change and attempt to get the consensus changed. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly it says "it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise", which I've been aiming at. Now, what kind of argument, that isn't subjective, can be made when no objective criteria exist to address the newly raised and previously undiscussed point? It's fine to use the accident airframe is on equal footing with It's not fine. The arguments I've seen detracted into left/right/livery, and I took the bait. — zmm ~talk~ 23:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You've taken my quote completely out of context, as I was referring to a change without prior discussion, which should have been obvious. As ZLEA explained, the consensus can change, hence the discussion here. BilCat (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@BilCat I apologize if I made a mistake reading the history. And again I assume good faith and that mistakes happen.

What I see is an IP raising the issue in December—which would fall under the WP:CCC's "previously unconsidered arguments"—and you citing an older discussion that doesn't discuss their issue (from what I can tell no one noticed it was the crash airframe back then).

I only wish this had stayed on track in Dec and now, and didn't detract into noses and colors of the sky—on which my stance remains (they are very subjective), but they're no longer the point as far as I'm concerned.

I'm also assuming good intentions by @Marc Lacoste and by everyone involved here. — zmm ~talk~ 01:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Apology accepted. The easiest thing to do now is to vote on the photos, and pick one that way. There are different ways to do it, and we can argue about which way to do it, or even if we should vote at all. In my view, this is an editorial, not a policy, decision, so voting on a preferred photo is fine. We've done that in other articles before, and it usually worked. BilCat (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It's OK :) — zmm ~talk~ 16:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

Something's off with the current image, and it turns out it's rotated:

• 
  Current
• 
  Source of current before rotation, zoom, and color balance changes—yikes!

Southwest being the largest operator, I checked the Southwest photos on Commons, but none are sharp or of a standard aspect ratio. The guidelines (WP:Aircontent) don't mention it has to be the largest operator, so I suggest this one:

Suggestion

It's the only one as of writing this with a quality rating (COM:QI). And it's in-flight per the guidelines WP:Aircontent. zmm (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Update: I've went ahead with the edit. zmm (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That main image was rotated is not enough reason by itself to replace it, imo. You should at least give others adequate time to respond imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I've waited 22 hours, and since the edit does no harm and uses a (the only) Quality Image (per objective technical criteria), I went ahead with it. I can't find the right words for it, but finding out about the rotation explains why it seemed off. The same goes for the one with more rotation:

I think it's the clouds orientation, sunlight and shooting angle not making visual sense. I hope this better explains why I brought up the rotation. zmm (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Fair point. I did not look at the background enough to catch those details, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Other proposition

The proposed LOT picture may have its merits, but it's on the unusual direction for airliner pictures, more often facing left, is over dull grey sky and the airliner have a distracting, non-standard livery. I went through all MAX 8 pictures in petscan to extract left-facing inflight ones over a blue sky (I kept one by airline):

Extended content
Air Canada Air China, front side, blue sky Akasa Air China Eastern China Southern Ethiopian Airlines FlyDubai Icelandair Malta Air Mauritania Airlines Ryanair Southwest Airlines SunExpress Turkish Airlines WestJet

• 
  Current non-standard LOT facing right, dull sky
• 
  Proposed Ethiopian, facing left, sunny sky

The most interesting IMO is the Ethiopian one, keeping the clean config gear up, and better showing the MAX external differences : nacelle chevrons and split-tip winglets.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the Ethiopian Airlines photo is probably the best for an infobox image. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible Alternative

I don't think it's a good idea to have a picture of a doomed plane as the first image you see. I think an image showing a plane from Southwest, the largest operator would be a better idea. Here are a couple of images I think would fit instead of the doomed plane. TheTransitFanNY (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• 
• 

The second image had been proposed before and rejected because it was not in as clean of a configuration as some of the other options. The blue livery against the blue sky (especially on the first image with the bright blue sky) might cause of problems for colorblind people (I'm not colorblind, so I don't know how serious this would be). - ZLEA _T\^C 22:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I see, I'll look over more photos and propose some alternatives in the section below. I just don't like seeing a doomed plane as the first thing you see, knowing that so many people look to wikipedia for information. TheTransitFanNY (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I recommend reading the past discussions on this issue. Because "it crashed" is not a good reason to replace an infobox image, be prepared to demonstrate that your proposed replacement is better from an encyclopedic point of view. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Concur, especially since we aren't pointing out it's the doomed plane in the lead, so it's not obvious without digging deeper. BilCat (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Mileage conversion

I see no reason to exclude "miles" when nautical miles and kilometers are still included. DonFB (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed before in Talk:Airbus_A350#Units. The resulting consensus used in the article since the discussion in Oct-Dec 2019 is to use the kilometer and the nautical mile, not the statue mile.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@DonFB, @Marc Lacoste: I believe this deserves a broader discussion, so I've created a topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Units conversion -- RickyCourtney (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

737-8 is mentioned without introducing the rebrand

Under the "737 MAX 7" it's mentioned that the design includes 737-8 features but the article never talks about the rebranding of the 737 Max 8 before the reintroduction. 209.33.83.25 (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific about this rebranding? 737 MAX 7 is a another form of 737-7; same for 737 MAX 8 / 737-8 and 737 MAX 9 / 737-9. The higher density 737 MAX 200 has a 737-8200 designtation from -8 and 200. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Section update; paragraph split

The following sentence:

"In January 2024, the FAA grounded some 737 MAX 9s with a configuration similar to that of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, which suffered a mid-flight blow out of a plug door filling an unused emergency exit, causing rapid decompression of the aircraft."

(1) should start a new paragraph as it concerns a different of incidents from those in the earlier part of the paragraph;

(2) should be updated as the FSA has now (9th Jan, 2024) grounded all of that set of aircraft. Two airlines, so far, have discovered loose bolts in that part of the configuration during their investigations.

The situation is developing and it is possible that further problems will be discovered as airlines investigate. 86.185.71.236 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've made it a separate paragraph, though the long-term significance of this issue is yet to be proven and I doubt if this will remain lead-worthy. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Grounding

I came here looking for info on the Jan 2024 grounding of the 737 MAX 9 fleet. I am disappoint.

If someone knows where the main article is on that, please link it in this article. Jra (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Boeing_737_MAX_groundings, the link is actually in the text of this article. Ex nihil ^(talk) 15:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Unprecise wording in section Alaska Airlines Flight 1282

"Some small personal belongings, along with cabin trim such as seat covers and headrests, were sucked out of the opening. According to some passengers, a child seated in row 26 had his shirt ripped off and sucked out of the aircraft while his mother held him.

Sucking forces do not exist in physics. The discussed items got blown/pushed/torn out of the fusealage as the compressed inner air ventilated out of the opening. We should try to be precise in our wording in an encyclopedia, no matter what some non expert journalists writes. 194.94.244.127 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Do sucking forces exist when you drink liquids through a straw? It's all just a pressure differential? Does this "unprecise wording" make any difference to the outcome of this incident, or to the general reader's understanding of what happened? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC) p.s. I took the wording from Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, where you might also want to raise your question? Thanks.

Ah right, I see no question to the Talk page there, but a swift change to the text with the edit summary "corrected very common semantics error". How very convenient. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely right, blown not sucked, as for the door plug, also conflicts with Wiki pressurization articles elsewhere. Made the change. Ex nihil ^(talk) 16:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it matters very much. But do you also maintain that "Sucking forces do not exist in physics"? How do you explain how these things work? Apparently Aristotle once said, "nature abhors a pedant". I bet his carpets were filthy. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to delete this article now. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it really sucks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC) p.s. Perhaps we should just go with ".. ripped clean off his body, flying out the hole... "? What will these eye-witnesses come up with next!

NOT absolutely right, it's actually a relative truth, blown or sucked, both are right depending on the observer's position. An observer or reporter outside the aircraft will say: "During the climb, the door plug was blown out.", while a reporter within the aircraft will say: "Some small personal belongings, along with cabin trim such as seat covers and headrests, were sucked out of the opening." I hope we can agree and reach consensus on this topic. And as for the door plug, that's another subject, not to be confused. Ich-Du-De (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how many people were outside the aircraft when this accident occurred. It seems we're still waiting to hear from them.... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess that all of humanity (minus the 177 people on board) were outside the aircraft . More seriously, reliable sources are reporting the event as seen from the point of view of those on board, so "sucked" is indeed standard usage regardless of whether it is technically correct or not! Rosbif73 (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, you and me both. But not sure many were in a position to observe anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You can read the answer up on wikipedia itsself. The "atmospheric pressure forces the liquid through the straw and into the mouth". It is absolutely true, items/people get torn out of planes/spaceships in such cases. Not sucked!2A02:8071:5090:EA00:39D9:7CE8:26EF:323B (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, there is only "blowing" and no "suction" in reality (physics) because the air and generally the fluid will always flow from a high potential (pressure) to a low potential (vacuum) and the same goes for the temperature which flows from high potential (hot) to low potential (cold). Physics describes a process in absolute law, independent of the observer, while the technical description (engineering) aims for easy understanding and mainly in relative law, that is to say dependent on the position of the observer as in our case : "suck out" (observer inside the plane) and "blow out" (observer outside the plane). A Wikipedia reader does not have to first learn physics to understand an article about an aircraft accident.Ich-Du-De (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We all await the final accident report with interest... will they use "sucked out" or "blown out"?? For some reason, I'm on the edge of my seat! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is an encyclopedia. The situation is very much like an item in a pressurized bottle of coke when the lid is popped off. No one, in particular not in an encyclopedia would describe the item that flies out of the bottle as being sucked out. We do not need to call it blown out or pushed out, but i think that 'torn out' would be a very precise and understandable term. What do you think? 2A02:8071:5090:EA00:39D9:7CE8:26EF:323B (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I doubt the NTSB will be mentioning bottles of coke, but you never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

No need to take things personally, Martin. Just trying to help you.

In case you like Start Trek, here is scene for you worth watching ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHa_WxzYWDI 194.94.244.127 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

We wrote in the article "During the climb, a door plug blew out", so this is consistent with Mr. Data's claim in the Star Trek clip shown, isn't it? Ich-Du-De (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Cmdr. Data refers to the crew, not the hatch. 5.146.15.18 (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Take things personally? Sorry, I don't drink Coke. "It's a drink, Jim, but not as we know it." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, this is an encyclopedia, but the article is not about theoretical physics or mechanics, it is aboutairplane accident. The term "torn out" or "ripped out" is good and neutral, but it only concerns the result of a process, and not about the process itself. “Suck out” says both: it is torn out because it is sucked by “vacuum” outside the plane, IMO. Ich-Du-De (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

A vacuum does not suck. That's the hole point about it. It is the pressurizes athmosphere that pushes. And frankly, it is entirely beyond me why you insist to write sthg wrong into an enzyclopedia when correct and precise wording is at hands. Why do you want readers to manifest a wrong picture if that is absolutely not necessary. How long do you think you want to revert correct changes back to wrong? 5.146.15.18 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's the hole point. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"A vacuum does not suck", and why did you also use the terms "vacuum" and "suck" when both do not exist in reality (physics)? A vacuum is a technical term for airspace at very low pressure compared to the standard pressure level, normally air at sea level. "Suction" is similar to "centrifugal" force, also a technical term for a "negative force" to describe the forces according to human impression (easy understanding) instead of their true "positive form": "blowing" and respectively "centripetal" force. This methodology also exists in physics, we describe a motion with relatively low velocity using classical Newtonian law for easy understanding instead of using the more general and valid modern Einstein theory. Most of the time, and especially in a encyclopedia, we need only to describe a "correct" situation and not the "true" one for easy understanding. right? Ich-Du-De (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

My very last attempt trying to help you to understand the problem and to improve the article. I will not waste any more time on this as you do not seem to be willing to accept that you are wrong even after I am giving you high quality sources that clearly state the oposite of what you insist on to write into the article.

Space Centre NZ: https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/atmosphere-escape.html

Should read 2: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/11/21/theres-no-suction-in-space-because-suction-is-an-illusion/

If you remain to feel that it is ok to actively maintain wrong wording on wikipedia articles, that isn't my problem. Its yours. I call that vandalism.

Over and out 2A02:8071:5090:EA00:1D92:4060:A5E4:755A (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Accusing those who disagree with you of vandalism is not going to help your case. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

They don't disagree with me, they disagree with several high quality sources on exactly that topic, two of which I have linked here. Why do you think I should explain myself any further? 2A02:8071:5090:EA00:1D92:4060:A5E4:755A (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Explain to me this. What are your thoughts on the Suction article? - ZLEA _T\^C 19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What part of the article are you refering to? 2A02:8071:5090:EA00:1D92:4060:A5E4:755A (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The very existence of the article. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

After all the discussion you still don't get my point and are still trying to explain your point of view (physics), which I understood before the discussion started. Therefore I have to repeat my point:

I AGREE that in physics there is no "negative force" such as suction, centrifugal force, etc., as well as "negative temperature" measured in Kelvin, but only positive force: blowing, centripetal force, etc.

BUT,

I DISAGREE with enforcing this strict definition in daily life, including the non-physics article in Wikipedia to make it understandable to common reader. Ich-Du-De (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I do know that! And because of you disagreeing on this matter we now have the article uncontrolled decompression and the article Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 which consistently use correct wording, and we have 'your' article section in the 737 Max article refering to the same subject matter to which you block this change.

And by the way, I did not touch any of the two articles mentioned above. I am not involved in this inconsitency, I was only trying to solve it. Its your baby. NedFlandersThe2nd (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thats perfectly what I am telling you constantly!

As correctly stated in that article, suction is a day to day wording that refers to items being 'sucked in' by an artifical low pressure compartment e.g. in a vaccum cleaner, lungs during beathing or a straw. In all these cases energy is used to create that low pressure compartment resulting in objects beeing 'sucked' in while the forces come from the high pressure zone.

In an airplane, energy from a compressor is used to generate an artificial pressurized compartment, which in case of a sudden decompression blows out objects through that opening. The cherry stone in your mouth is also not sucked out of your mouth. It is blown out.

Also, both examples are mentioned perfectly in that article and in the sources I have linked.

So what exactly is it that you do not understand? 5.146.15.18 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"A common semantic mistake is made when in case of accidents with planes", I wonder what that could be in reference to. None of the sources you provided mention anything about "accidents with planes", making that part original research. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, but this statement is according to source 'succion is an illusion' which is given as a reference for that article. Hence I reverted your change back.

You should also think about consistency with the uncontrolled decompression article, which states that objects are blown out 8 times. I have added this one now, too to the suction article. So thanks for your help. 2A02:8071:5090:EA00:783D:7219:F785:582E (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that you were the one to add the "day-to-day term" statement to the article. Usually, if you want to change unsourced material as you did here, you would need sources to support your changes. Unless you can provide such sources, I will revert your unsourced changes to Suction. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

"Sucking forces do not exist in physics. The discussed items got blown/pushed/torn out of the fusealage as the compressed inner air ventilated out of the opening." Okay, negative pressure/force do not exist in physics, so no suction and centrifugal, just pressure and respectively centripetal forces. While physical description is used for absolute values/units to derive the formulas, we mainly use technical or engineering terms (relative to a reference) to easily describe the situation in daily life, including on Wikipedia. For example. we use sea level pressure (1bar) as a reference to describe a pressure zone (>1bar) or a suction zone (<1bar) on the aerodynamic surface such as a wing. We also say that centrifugal force works in a centrifuge, but centripetal force keeps the planets in orbit around the sun. We should therefore try to be as precise as possible (means as simple as possible) in our wording in wikipedia, taking into account the description in daily life (media). In our case, the reference is the position of the observer in relation to the plane: outside (blow) and inside (suck). Ich-Du-De (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure centrifugal and centripetal forces are relevant here. And no, I wouldn't say that the earth is "sucking the atmosphere down" to cause sea level pressure. But I agree that, from the passengers' point of view, things were getting "sucked out of the aircraft". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

By what did items get sucked out? They got torn out by the artificially pressurized athmosphere within the vessel when it vented through the opening. I think the point made is very valid. 2A02:8071:5090:EA00:39D9:7CE8:26EF:323B (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious to hear your opinion on the Suction article. This is not an article on physical forces, and the concept of "suction" being the result of air pressure differential between areas is widely known to English speakers. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Imagine an item being inside a half full pressurized bottle of coke. Now you pop of the lid. If you can confidently say that the item that is now flying out of the bottle got sucked out of it and you would describe the process in that way in an encyclopedia, there is nothing further to discuss, I will accept your opinion and we can move on. 2A02:8071:5090:EA00:39D9:7CE8:26EF:323B (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It all depends on perspective. From outside the container, one would experience a force pushing them away from the hole, which would likely be described as blowing. From inside the container, one would experience a force pulling them towards the hole, which would likely be described as sucking. From your perspective when opening a coke bottle, you are outside the container, so as you said you would describe the forces felt as "blowing". In the case of the accident, however, the passengers were within a pressurized container and felt the force of decompression, which they described as "sucking" (no pun intended). The description of the decompression forces as "sucking" is backed up by almost all reliable sources covering the accident. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright then! Take care! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHa_WxzYWDI 2A02:8071:5090:EA00:39D9:7CE8:26EF:323B (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Datas grandpa also agrees on that.

"GPT: If a door of a plane opens at high altitude, the correct terminology for describing the movement of items inside the plane being expelled through the door is that they are "forced out" or "ejected" due to the rapid movement of air from a high-pressure area (inside the cabin) to a low-pressure area (outside the aircraft).

The term "sucked out" is commonly used in casual conversation and media, but from a physics standpoint, it's more accurate to say that objects are pushed or forced out by the high-pressure air moving towards the lower pressure area. This is a result of the air pressure trying to equalize rather than a suction force in the traditional sense." 194.94.244.127 (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I see, this is also another character of physics description, it is more "object oriented", while technical or engineering description is more "subject or usage oriented". Let's take as an example the combustion process in an aircraft engine, particularly during the expansion process in the turbine. A theoretical thermodynamics book (physics style) will focus on the fuel-air mixture, i.e. the material, and say that its internal energy is reduced or a negative delta (energy flows from the material/object), while a technical thermodynamics book (engineering style) will say a positive delta (energy is transferred to the engine turbine). Ich-Du-De (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"an item being inside a half full pressurized bottle of coke. Now you pop of the lid. If you can confidently say that the item that is now flying out of the bottle got sucked out of it", no, definitely not. It has to be "blown out", because the observer is (always) outside the bottle, or can you "teleport" me into the bottle like Star Trek? Ich-Du-De (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

For the protocol:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/11/21/theres-no-suction-in-space-because-suction-is-an-illusion/

https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/atmosphere-escape.html

It isn't a matter of perspective, its a matter of right or wrong. 'Sucked out' is wrong. There is nothing that sucks. There is a compressor that pressurizes the cabin and this compressor is where the energy comes from that blows objects out in such a case. This is the situation and there is nothing more to discuss about it. You are a prime example why precise wording is important.

Now folks, make the best out of it. #overandout 2A02:8071:5090:EA00:1D92:4060:A5E4:755A (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The Suction article addresses this by stating "Contrary to popular belief, however, the forces acting in this case do not originate from the low pressure side (the vacuum), but from the side of the positive pressure." What are your thoughts on that? - ZLEA _T\^C 17:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the "forces" acting in this case do not originate from the low pressure side (the vacuum), or from the side of the positive pressure, but from the passengers perceptions? Both existing sources say "sucked out"? Perhaps there are more/ better sources that say "blown out"? As I said before, I'd be happy to leave it as it is until we see the NTSB report. Not sure it's a huge problem with the reader misunderstanding what happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"Sucked out" is actually not wrong but it is only not true (not in reality), because the term suction is also used in aerodynamics to describe pressure below sea level (< 1 bar). I admit that sometimes, in a complex technical situation, an engineer forgets that there is no suction and that he should change his level of abstraction to physics to describe the situation correctly, i.e. there is only blowing force, from a higher pressure to a lower pressure area.

Having said that, I do however DISAGREE with the enforcing of this strict definition in daily life, including the non-physics article of Wikipedia, to make it understandable to the common reader. Ich-Du-De (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This is getting silly. It seems that the only editor wanting 'suck' is Ich-Du-De but this gives us a problem. If we use 'suck' the article is internally inconsistent because it claims that the door 'blew' out but other loose items were 'sucked' out. The citation refers to a layman's comment, one of the survivors interviewed immediately after the incident who used 'sucked' colloquially and in ignorance, this source is not a reliable one for a technicality. It also contradicts the article Suction, which sets the facts out plainly. As an encyclopaedia we should be a lot more responsible about the words we use, or we are perpetuating a common myth when we should be setting the record straight. There is a huge difference between sucking and blowing and every reader with any physics will cringe when they read what we are writing. Ich-Du-De, not meaning to be rude, this is a genuine concern, but I wonder if English your first language? Forgive me if it is but if not, best step aside. In the end, the investigation report will settle it and while I do not know what that report will say it certainly will not refer to sucking. Ex nihil ^(talk) 20:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I would actually suspect the opposite. Since "suck" is so commonly used (technically correct or not) by native English speakers to refer to the result of air pressure differential between areas, I would expect that those who use "blown" in such a context to be non-native English speakers, which may or may not be a bit ironic. Being a native English speaker myself who is taking an academic minor in physics, I was blindsided by how controversial the term "suction" apparently is when I say how this discussion progressed, and furthermore I am surprised that "blow" is apparently not nearly as controversial for the same reasons. I'm not for or against either term, but perhaps the use of the term "suck" in this context is the result of an evolving language. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Also as a native English speaker with a technical background, "sucked out" seems like a perfectly natural way of describing what happened from the point of view of passengers on board, whereas "blown out" seems odd in this context and would seem more natural for, say, something being blown out of the window of a moving car. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hence my previous suggestions to use semantically correct and more natural sounding wording like "items got ejected", "items got torn out" etc. pp.. It is not like we do not have any alternatives at hand to which all of us could agree. NedFlandersThe2nd (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Further suggestions we can choose from to which you agree and which are semantically correct? NedFlandersThe2nd (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

In think neither @Martinevans123 nor @Ich-Du-De did understand that the term blowing has not the same meaning as the word suction when they did the edits. That's ok for a 14 year old teenager that just discovered the dark side of the internet but that should be fixed in an encyclopedia.

Since they are simply stubborn and come up with alternating explanations why it should stay wrongly worded (as they meanwhile accept)

1. Blowing and Suction do not have the same meaning. It is two different things, no matter what you think it means.
2. Only one of them is correct, the other is an illusion in this case (as underpinned with several references)
3. The meaning does not involve perspective (If this is the argument, where is the reference)
4. A blowout does not involve an explosion (if this is the argumentation where is the reference)
5. If it is a quote from a witness it should be marked as such and marked with a [sic]
6. Alternative wording could be used to circumvent the problem as I had suggested but was also rejected.

The situation remains that a wrong wording is used in this article which also breaks consistency across articles and even within the article. Corrections (3 independent attempts by) @NedFlandersThe2nd, @Ex nihil @ʘx have been reverted based on flaw arguments or no arguments at all. 2A02:8071:5090:EA00:ED4A:9C90:9172:1C8C (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Martinevans123 understood that the term blowing "has not the same meaning as the word suction", thanks. He's given his view a few times over and now he's retiring from this rather lengthy "discussion". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

p.s. one last thought... once the explosive decompression has occurred (which is very rapid), is there not then a prolonged aerodynamic effect of air rushing past the open aperture which "pulls" loose items out? Or will we be told "there is no pull force in physics"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I am absolutly pro finding a good solution. I do not insist on 'blown out' as I already mentioned in my very first edit, if somebody feels uncomfortable about it. But we really should need to find a wording that makes sense in this context.

As for your suggestion, simply think it through. How can wind pull sthg. Its not that the athmospheric molecules attach to the items and somehow generate a force that pulls on them. Also I don't think the headrest etc. did get ejected after the end of the blowout but due to the blowout.

Some thoughts:

The door "blew off" (consensus), the pressurized atmosphere "escapes/blew out" (consensus) through the hole and items got ejected in this process (maybe consensus).

How about we remove that 'forcibly' from my previous suggestion. I think we can reach consensus that things got ejected from the plane and maybe even that this is better wording than sucked out after several people including @Ich-Du-De and you already stated that they are aware that sucked out isn't exactly correct for which there are also RS. NedFlandersThe2nd (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

IchDuDe understood the difference between blowing and sucking either, that is to say in relation to the mouth:

a.) Blowing means that air/liquid flows out of the mouth, while

b.) Sucking means air/liquid flows into the mouth.

Additionally, in combination with the word "out", the terms "blown out" as well as "sucked out" can be interchangeable in our case because the result is the same, i.e. something is "pushed" out from the fuselage/cabin by air flow, either by a blowing process or by a suction process. I therefore prefer to use both terms: blown out for the door plug and sucked out for the passenger's belongings as reported by the person concerned. Ich-Du-De (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to finally sum this up:

The ASN has 17 accidents with explosive decompression on record. In three of them people were lost in flight.

The wording by the NTSB is two times ejection (1 + 2) and one time blown out. Zero times sucked out. I also gave you clear sources as to why sucked out is wrong wording in particular for this type of accident.

So one last question: Based on which ground are you guys reverting back a change to correct wording four times and insist to use wrong wording in this particular article (related articles are correct) not even willing to compromise on it?

Question also goes to: @Martinevans123, @Rosbif73 @ZLEA

And cc @Ex nihil and @ʘx just for your amusement NedFlandersThe2nd (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm just flabbergasted by this thread. Please take one or two steps back and have a look at this.

I shall follow the WP rule to assume the best, but I'm skeptical. Anyway: I will take the time and go to the fundamentals and explain.

Over the many years that I have been part of WP (since 2001), the same discussions have popped up again and again, because people just don't understand the difference between everyday discussions and vernacular and the scientific and formal requirements and standards that encylopedias in general and the WP in particular aspire to.

Yes, people use wrong language in their conversations, and yes, people have wrong conceptions about many things in their minds. But this does not mean that WP articles also can use wrong language or foster wrong conceptions.

WP articles use correct language in order to facilitate learning. If we say "an article about topic X does not need to be correct about topic Y", we betray our readers who intuitively expect all statements in an article to be correct, not just those that are concerned with the lemma. We would instill wrong conceptions in them or at least reinforce them. That is the opposite of what an encyclopedic work like the WP is supposed to do.

To make it clear: It is not relevant whether people are used to say "sucked out" or whether "they perceive it as such". The article describes a physical process where scientific truth has been established. Even when people perceive it differently, the physical condititions do not change. We have to describe *what happened* which may be *different from how it felt or was perceived*. The perception can be described *separately*, but it must not be mixed up with the progress of events.

I want to give you a different example. You are probably aware that when temperatures are extreme, we can actually mix up hot and cold. That is, it can happen that a cold object feels hot. However, it would be wrong to write "the person felt a hot object" when the object was in fact cold. We would have to write something along the lines of "the object felt hot to the person". See the difference? 18:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) ʘχ (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

NedFlandersThe2nd "Based on which ground are you guys reverting back a change to correct wording four times and insist to use wrong wording in this particular article (related articles are correct) not even willing to compromise on it?" No need for assuming bad faith, I have already stated that I have no preference for either word. I find this whole argument against the use of "suction" ridiculous. In response to ʘx's hot vs cold analogy, it could similarly be claimed that there is no such thing as "cold" in physics as what we call cold is in reality a lack of thermal energy or "heat". Yet, I don't see anyone arguing for the removal of "cold" from any articles. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@ZLEA There is cold and there is suction. Just not in this case! NedFlandersThe2nd (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Should I really assume the best? It doesn't seem that way.

Again, I have to explain fundamentals. You are mixing up categories, with errors like that it is easy to arrive at arbitrary statements.

• Hot and cold are physically well-defined concepts since they refer to certain intervals on the Kelvin scale. This has nothing to do with the definition of heat energy.
• The term "sucked out", on the other hand, is in fact referring to a physically wrong conception.

By the way, the argument that we can change perspective and perceive a blowing action as a sucking action does not change the physical facts. This is just an abuse of relativity. I can always say "I didn't punch you, you moved into my fist!" But for some strange reason, people won't accept this.

It really appears like you guys here are just fighting for being right. This seems to be one of those threads that are prolonged for eternity in order to tire others and make them weary so that they eventually go away. The one guy who stays will declare himself the winner. And as soon as some new editor comes and makes an edit, it will be reverted swiftly and the poor guy referred to the so-called "discussion" where he will be shown who's the boss. Have seen it too many times to be surprised. ʘχ (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

For someone who has been here so long, I would expect such accusations to be beneath you. It seems I have nothing more to contribute to this runaway discussion, so I will remove myself from it to prevent any further clashes. May cooler heads prevail. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

MAX 8-200 official name

@VenFlyer98: disputes the name of the Max 8 200, providing a Boeing press release from 2014(!), and makes the unsourced claim that it is referred to "internally" as the 200.

However, the official Boeing name is the "737-8-200". In addition, if you Google even "737 max 200" you get loads of results referring to it as the 8-200. 737 Technical Site Flightglobal 2021 2021 2023 2023 2023

If you look at the Irish aircraft register you will find it called the "BOEING 737-8200". The reason for this, of course, is to avoid confusing it with the Boeing 737-200 Original.

Clearly what has happened here is the official name got changed. If we look at the sources already in the article, the older ones such as Seattle Times 2014 refer to it as the 200, whereas the later ones such as theaircurrent.com 2019, Flightglobal 2021, or Ryanair 2022, refer to it as the 8-200.

I would be keen to get other editors' views on this. cagliost (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The 737-MAX 8200 is written on the fuselage in paint. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change Shencypeter (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Same on this Akasa 8-200. cagliost (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

MAX 8-200 isn't the official name. Listed below are the official and most popular names of all 737 MAX variants. The official name is based on FAA and EASA type certificates, while the most popular name is based on Google search results.

Official name / Most popular name:

- 737-7 / 737 MAX 7

- 737-8 / 737 MAX 8

- 737-8200 / 737 MAX 200

- 737-9 / 737 MAX 9

- 737-10 / 737 MAX 10

RPC7778 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

As you say, the US model name is "737-8200"; same with EASA (see, for example, the IAA registry).

I can't replicate your Google results. When I search for "737 MAX 200" I get 106,000 results, whereas when I search for "737 MAX 8 200" I get 688,000 results, and when I search for "737 MAX 8-200" I get 686,000 results. cagliost (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring "737 MAX 8 200", the "737 MAX 200" yields 63M results while the "737 MAX 8-200" generates almost 1M results. I'm not sure how you only got 106,000 results for the "737 MAX 200".

The reason why I ignored "737 MAX 8 200", despite generating 74.8M results, is because the search engine tends to disconnect the "737 MAX 8" and "200". The "200" may not even refer to the model name at all in some results. RPC7778 (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you using quotes or not? I am. cagliost (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's important not to confuse the model name with the name of the aircraft. For example, the MAX 9 has the model name "737-9", according to the FAA registry.

So the model names don't include the word "MAX", whereas the aircraft names do. cagliost (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

What was the official marketing name used by Boeing for the 737-8200 before MAX was dropped? The marketing name may not necessarily be the most popular name for the aircraft. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's 737 MAX 200. [9] RPC7778 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Well then, since WP:COMMONNAME only applies to article titles, I see no reason to not refer to it by Boeing's old official marketing name unless examples of Boeing referring to the variant as "MAX 8200" or "MAX 8-200" can be found. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"MAX" has not been dropped. RPC7778 provides a Boeing press release from 2014, however in this 2023 press release, Boeing refer to it as a 737-8-200, and also call it a MAX in the same article. cagliost (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Boeing has all but completely dropped the "MAX" name from the variants, though not the type as a whole. My point is that the article should use Boeing's "MAX 200" name and not "MAX 8200" or "MAX 8-200", unless it can be determined that Boeing itself referred to the variant as such. Interestingly, the press release you provided still used the MAX name for the MAX 10, but not the 200. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The name “8200” has only been used by Ryanair and was painted on planes to drop the MAX name due to the original grounding incidents. Boeing referred to the plane has the “MAX 200” since the original press releases (which I have mentioned prior). In my opinion should either be listed as “MAX 200” or “MAX 8-200.” Almost all articles of airlines that fly the type have had it listed as “MAX 200” for years now. VenFlyer98 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy with "MAX 8-200". cagliost (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless it can be determined that Boeing used the name, it would not be right to add an unofficial name alongside the actual marketing names. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably of note, Boeing currently refers to the 200 as the 737-8-200, so there is a discrepancy between the current marketing name and model number. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)