Talk:Boeing 777
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing 777 Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "English variant notice". Script error: No such module "Article history". Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Template:Spoken Wikipedia request Template:Top 25 Report User:MiszaBot/config User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn Template:Annual readership
Wikipedia Article Recording in Progress
Just a quick notification to everyone that I'm recording this article for Spoken Wikipedia, so don't make any changes. (This one's gonna take a WHILE.) AravPerfectlyEdits (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024 - Change Triple Seven to 777 (or vice versa) in some places
Script error: No such module "protected edit request". change certain mentions of "Triple Seven" to "777" ex: change "The Triple Seven initially competed with the Airbus A340 and McDonnell Douglas MD-11" to "The 777 initially competed with the Airbus A340 and McDonnell Douglas MD-11" Both 777 and Triple Seven are used in the paragraph mentioned in my example, I feel like it would be better to change all mentions to 777 or Triple Seven for consistency reasons. Jwang1234 (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Using varied wording can be a good thing to make the wording less repetitive. However I think 777 should be the main choice and I changed one Triple Seven use in the Lead to 777 just now. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fnlayson, please remember to set the edit request to
|answered=yesonce you've resolved an edit request. Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)- I'm never fully sure if I addressed the request or not. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
L1011 retirement time...wrong
The article states by the end of the 1980's trijets were reaching retirment age.. the last L1011 was built in 1983 .. theu didnt retire until 2001 100.38.247.36 (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per the cited source, by the 1980s the DC-10s and L-1011s were expected to be retired in the 1990s. The wording in the article has been adjusted to match the source. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 777
Note: New user Script error: No such module "user". is working on a draft that duplicates the topic of the Template:Alink section here, at Draft:Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 777. Perhaps someone here could mentor them, as to best steps forward, in particular, regarding citations, and WP:PAGEDECIDE. Mathglot (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
777 Specifications table has a strange reference problem.
The table has a great deal of information and should be in the article, however. There is a section of the table labelled "Takeoff" with strange numbers that isn't explained what it is, other than MTOW (Max TakeOff Weight) I can't easily find the source of this number to indicate what it is supposed to be, but I guesstimate it refers to runway length required for takeoff.
If that is what is referred to in the article, it should list "Takeoff runway length required" or something to that effect. I am hoping somebody know a bit more where this piece of information comes from and can clarify rather than me hamfisting in an edit, even if it is in good faith. 94.246.36.214 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)