Talk:747

747

An article for the Boeing 747 was started here, but I moved it to the proper location. I would normally say it is worth leaving the re-direct, but I am not sure in this case. Most articles that are just numbers are years, for example 2367. Do we want to have one that isn't, and is instead a redirect to another article? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 16:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - if you're going to move and then put the redirect up for deletion, at least move the links pointing to said redirect. :) I've done that now. -- Sulfur 16:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't think any had been created. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 17:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep and return the article to 747 using Boeing 747 as a redirect as previously. A disambiguation notice (such as on 47) it should be sufficient to get visitors to early history if they're looking for that year, not that anything significant in the Star Trek universe happened in that year. Additionally, the plane was never referred to as a "Boeing 747" in dialogue, just as a "747." While it's relatively certain this refers to the B747, we shouldn't make that assumption. -- SmokeDetector47^{( TALK )} 05:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, return, year-note. Agree w/SmokeDetector. - AJ Halliwell 04:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Decision: Keep and move. - AJ Halliwell 10:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Most Likely

I removed this.

It is likely this was a reference to the Boeing 747, one of the largest commercial jetliners in the world. A specially modified 747 was also involved in the flight tests of the space shuttle Enterprise.

It is "most likely" a reference, that's what the article is about."— Vince47 10:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting. The article is about some random thing called "747," we don't actually know it is the Boeing or it would be titled "Boeing 747." In fact, an attempt was made to do that, and reverted per the above discussion. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 17:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So how do we justify saying in the article that Boeing built it? --TribbleFurSuit 23:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it shouldn't. It wasn't said in canon, and if I remember correctly, it wasn't seen either.--31dot 23:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So why is it that a simple "747" reference can't be a Boeing 747, but a simple "Spitfire" reference can be a Supermarine Spitfire? What are the guidelines we are trying to establish here?--Alan 23:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't. Anymore. :) -- sulfur 00:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got me Alan, I've no idea why this can't be Boeing 747, all I know is that when I tried to do that I got told I was wrong. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 00:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rhetorical question? We aren't trying to establish any guidelines, we're trying to interpret the ones we already have. If, Alan, you don't agree and you do see here an effort to establish a guideline, I'm interested in your own opinion about what it should be. I say: No "Boeing" in the 747 article, except in the italicized note. Sulfur seems to agree and took similar action at Spitfire. To me it's simple: this is just more cruft that doesn't adhere to an extremely familiar and little-equivocating policy. Every day we catch up on the backlog of fixing that stuff - whether it's some nüb's contribution or one left over from before canon, speculation, presumption and O.R. were taken so seriously. --TribbleFurSuit 01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I changed my mind. Spitfire doesn't have an italicized ditherment about Supermarine. I'm'a remove the 747 one again. Everybody can see the "External link". That's good enough. --TribbleFurSuit 02:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. The bit about carrying the Space Shuttle? Definitely agree. Not required. However, the bit about it likely being a Boeing? As noted on my talk page, where you so kindly continued the discussion, rather than commenting on my changes further here, I noted that the leap of logic from a "747" to a "Boeing 747", and thus the WP link, seems to be a useful leap of obvious logic to share with the reader. On the Spitfire page, not so much. Over there, the "Supermarine" bit... well, hell... how many people even know that the full name is "Supermarine Spitfire"? To most, it's just a Spitfire, thus no need for dithering in italics. Unlike the Boeing 747. Of course, there may also be a Bombardier 747 for all we know.

Oh, and btw, Alan was being a bit facetious or sarcastic above. Suggesting the opposite of the true aim. -- sulfur 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? All I did on your Talk: page was to tell YOU to get over here. If anybody continued the discussion in the wrong place, it wasn't me. I'll tell you what else: While I humbly conceded that, considering this is obviously not a closed issue, my own acting like Superman and unilaterally making the edit I wanted to see was premature and should have been discussed, rather than simply described, you have shown no such concession. You're just right, period. --TribbleFurSuit 02:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"btw, Alan was being a bit facetious or sarcastic above. Suggesting the opposite of the true aim". If Alan was being Socratically ironic, it really is not clear what his own true aim was. In which case the presumed irony utterly fails and nothing but confusion results. If Alan doesn't have any opinion at all about any hypothetical "new guidelines", OK, I get it. I'll tell you what I don't get though: What did Alan want? YES to Boeing, or, NO to Supermarine? All he managed to do was point out that they weren't consistent, while suggesting his own uncertainty about whether there's an established right way to do it or not. If he thinks there is a right way, I want to hear it. --TribbleFurSuit 02:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Alan, how do you remove the WP link, saying "no boeing should mean no boeing", but leave this in there while you'ree at it? Should "no boeing" mean "no boeing", or, should "no boeing" mean "half the boeings"? --TribbleFurSuit 02:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, why are any of you removing the WP link or the "most likely" note when the final word anyone gave on the subject (and no one has objected to) was Sulfur saying they are OK to have and useful to have? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)