![]() | This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 2015 October 16. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Is this article Boeing slanted? It seems to focus primarily on tbe 747 ('Because the 747 was representative of so many "firsts" in so many cateio dont know dudegories, first "wide-body airliner," first to use the "twin-aisle concept," and the first airliner to use "quiet technology high bypass turbofan engines.') and mentions the other airline company as a side note. I'm hardly an expert in these matters, however, perhaps someone in the know can give us their opinion? -- Feanix ( talk) 07:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the term "Jumbo Jet" was first used to apply to the Boeing 747. It was a huge leap in the size of aircraft and being a jet that was so much larger it was called the "Jumbo Jet" to set it apart as being so much larger. I suppose the term could also apply to other large wide body aircraft like the 777 or 787, but I've always heard it as being used for the 747 or possibly large cargo aircraft like the C-5 or An-225. As for the A380, the term associated with it is "Super Jumbo" implying it is the next big step in jet size. I suppose you could question whether a "Super Jumbo" is a type of Jumbo or a seperate, next step. In that sense, I don't see how it would be considered biased toward Boeing. The 747 is the big jet. The A380 is the BIGGER jet. DrBuzz0 ( talk) 03:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Should wide body aircraft be included? I've never heard of anything other than a B747 been called a Jumbo Jet, and in fact a Google search will only bring up the B747. Even the A380 isn't normally called a Jumbo Jet, it's more often referred to as a Super Jumbo. Harvyk ( talk) 09:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"Because the 747 was representative of so many 'firsts' in so many categories, first 'wide-body airliner,' first to use the 'twin-aisle concept,' and the first airliner to use 'quiet technology high bypass turbofan engines," this particular aircraft is often and rightfully referred to as a jetliner for these among other reasons which follow."
Actually, the fact that it's jet-powered is the reason it's referred to as a jetliner. All the other reasons cited or alluded to are irrelevant. "Rightfully" is a bizarre work choice here, and the whole sentence has a stilted and strange grammatical structure. Maybe a re-write by a someone fluent in English who does not work for Boeing would we good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 ( talk) 13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't the Spruce Goose be a Jumbo Jet? It is HUGE! It is the biggest plane in wingspan, height, and largest flying boat ever. K50 Dude ROCKS!
No, it's not a jet. 59.167.251.161 ( talk) 10:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
A jetliner with two passenger seating decks, one being twin-aisle the other single-aisle? 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 13:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
No, when the term was coined, it was simply used to explain the size of the plane compared to others of the era. The name was attached to the B747 more because it was the only jet of that size, which was typically used for passanger service. I expect if you look into things you'd find that the name was coined more as a marketing exercise by the airlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.251.161 ( talk) 10:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
why do jetplane leave smokeline while fly high on sky? pls mail me if anybody had answer (e-mail address removed)
Once a jumbo is landed, lights go on, and they look like a city in it's own capacity. Are there any pictures where a jumbo on it's own causes more light pollution than the island it lands on?-- 85.164.220.159 ( talk) 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Jumbo Jet is not a category of plane, it is a nickname specific to the Boeing 747. Other wide-body planes have other nicknames, like "Super Jumbo" for the A380. I admit I have seen some limited usage of jumbo jet to refer to non-747 aircraft (some reports of the recent SFO Korean Air 777 crash called it a jumbo jet)... I imagine a certain number of them just looked it up on Wikipedia.
While I readily admit that some people may use the term to apply generically to all wide-bodies, you might as well redirect Xerox to photocopy if that's the direction we are going. As an attempt at proof by Wikipedia, I will note that only the Boeing 747 page actually uses the term Jumbo Jet to describe the plane, and no other wide-body plane I can find does so except in reference to the 747.
In fact, it is in the first sentence: "The Boeing 747 is a wide-body commercial airliner and cargo transport aircraft, often referred to by its original nickname, Jumbo Jet, or Queen of the Skies." The A380's much less well-known nickname is buried once deep in the article: "Dubbed the Superjumbo by the media[79]", along with the titles of many references.
But see how silly it would sound to say: "The Boeing 777 is a long-range wide-body twin-engine jet airliner manufactured by Boeing Commercial Airplanes, often referred to by its original nickname, Jumbo Jet". (By the way, the 777's nickname is Triple Seven.)
Please read the blurb Where did the nickname “Jumbo Jet” come from? at the Seattle Museum of Flight. Granted, the museum is in Boeing country, but I think they can be authoritative on this issue. According to them, it was originally coined by media as a derisive term... I leave it as an exercise to the reader to dig up newspaper clippings from the 1960s to find the first use of the term.
Marcinjeske ( talk) 02:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Adding, noticed an article specifically discussing the 747: "Ask any passenger at any airport in the world: “Can you recognize a Boeing 747?” Chances are, even casual flyers will say, “Yes.” With its unmistakable hump and graceful lines, the Jumbo Jet -- so famous it earned its own nickname -- has been a familiar sight around the globe since it first flew in 1969." and also "The Jumbo Jet is no match for a world of high oil prices and new, fuel-efficient airplanes..." at Boeing 747 On Deathwatch: How Boeing’s New 777X Will Kill Its Jumbo Jet Predecessor, Once The Queen Of The Skies at IBN. Marcinjeske ( talk) 03:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.), I'm going to go with the original redirects as a compromise. The first version of Jumbo Jet, created 13 May 2002, made it the proper nickname for the 747, and that wasn't changed to the generic meaning for nearly four years. The first version of jumbo jet was created 14 February 2003, as a result of a move to Wide-body aircraft – that's right, the original 9 February 2003 "Wide-body aircraft" article was about jumbo jets! ...and pretty much reflected what I think is the everyday commoners top-of-the-head unsourced viewpoint of the matter. So that's what I'm going with. A hatnote for each. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 13:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
What you are arguing for is the equivalent of redirects such as:
Find one example where a redirect like that actually exists. Now, there are some cases where trademarks become genericised, like Zamboni machine but show me one case where a non-trademarked, generic term became commercialized by common usage. I'd never heard of the term JesusPhone before you mentioned it; that's too obscure to be considered a common generic term. If you want to redirect Queen Jet to the 747, and have sources for that usage, fine. Wbm1058 ( talk) 19:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
– There is no primary topic. See discussion in the section above. Wbm1058 ( talk) 12:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The moniker "jumbo jet" is not owned by Boeing or anyone else.Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
the term is "usually applied specifically to the Boeing 747." But this observation in no way suggests jumbo must be limited to 747s.Can you think of any other examples where a generic term redirects to a specific dominating product that is the primary topic for that term? I'd like to see some other precedents for this. One that just comes to mind is Zamboni machine. And they actually do have a trademark on the name, and are fighting trademark dilution. Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
most references to Jumbo jet still refer to the 747– you need to back that claim up with some actual examples. In the section above, BD2412 has provided several examples that do not support your premise. Here's another one. Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
This 1967 Popular Science article shows that the term jumbo jet had generic meaning from the beginning. It doesn't overly focus on a specific plane, but rather on the new concepts: two aisles, bigger engines, more lavatories, etc. It even mentions that Lockheed proposed a 900-passenger " monster". That word probably conjures up too many hideous images; thus the friendlier "super jumbo". The focus was on educating people about a new means of travel, not on glorifying a specific jet model.
But as I look at some more recent sources, I'm beginning to see the meaning of jumbo jet may indeed be evolving towards being a synonym for 747. That's probably due somewhat to its longevity. Still flying passengers, while the DC-10 is just flying cargo. For example, see the 2010 book Flight of the Titans: Boeing, Airbus and the Battle for the Future of Air Travel (funny, there's that word "monster" again, being used to describe the Airbus A380). On page 105, "there was a further piece of distinctive design that defined the jumbo jet: Its famous hump." OK, clearly a hump is not a defining characteristic of a widebody jet. When this author uses the term, they are talking specifically about the 747. Another example: United jumbo jet hull ruptures in July airport collision, Bloomberg, August 15, 2014. "The parked 747, one of only 24 jumbos at the carrier..." – I assume they mean United has 24 747s. When referring to another jet, the Boeing 777, its called "a wide-body model".
I think the DC-10 in its prime was commonly called a jumbo. But I see the Boeing 777, which seats about the same number of passengers, is now called a mini-jumbo, a term I don't think was used much in the early days of widebodies. Speaking of that, the 1967 Popular Science article never uses the term "wide body" or "widebody", even though it is talking about such aircraft in the generic sense. OK, the term has been around since the beginning, but has always been dwarfed by jumbo.
So, my question is, do you expect that, over time, after the last 747 has been retired and replaced by newer model jets, will the term "jumbo jet" only be used in a historical sense, and not to refer to any other actively flying jets? This may be possible, but I'm still not convinced. Widebody is kind of a clumsy word in comparison to jumbo. Wbm1058 ( talk) 02:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The usage of " jumbo jet" is under discussion, see talk:jumbo jet (disambiguation) -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 08:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 2015 October 16. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Is this article Boeing slanted? It seems to focus primarily on tbe 747 ('Because the 747 was representative of so many "firsts" in so many cateio dont know dudegories, first "wide-body airliner," first to use the "twin-aisle concept," and the first airliner to use "quiet technology high bypass turbofan engines.') and mentions the other airline company as a side note. I'm hardly an expert in these matters, however, perhaps someone in the know can give us their opinion? -- Feanix ( talk) 07:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the term "Jumbo Jet" was first used to apply to the Boeing 747. It was a huge leap in the size of aircraft and being a jet that was so much larger it was called the "Jumbo Jet" to set it apart as being so much larger. I suppose the term could also apply to other large wide body aircraft like the 777 or 787, but I've always heard it as being used for the 747 or possibly large cargo aircraft like the C-5 or An-225. As for the A380, the term associated with it is "Super Jumbo" implying it is the next big step in jet size. I suppose you could question whether a "Super Jumbo" is a type of Jumbo or a seperate, next step. In that sense, I don't see how it would be considered biased toward Boeing. The 747 is the big jet. The A380 is the BIGGER jet. DrBuzz0 ( talk) 03:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Should wide body aircraft be included? I've never heard of anything other than a B747 been called a Jumbo Jet, and in fact a Google search will only bring up the B747. Even the A380 isn't normally called a Jumbo Jet, it's more often referred to as a Super Jumbo. Harvyk ( talk) 09:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"Because the 747 was representative of so many 'firsts' in so many categories, first 'wide-body airliner,' first to use the 'twin-aisle concept,' and the first airliner to use 'quiet technology high bypass turbofan engines," this particular aircraft is often and rightfully referred to as a jetliner for these among other reasons which follow."
Actually, the fact that it's jet-powered is the reason it's referred to as a jetliner. All the other reasons cited or alluded to are irrelevant. "Rightfully" is a bizarre work choice here, and the whole sentence has a stilted and strange grammatical structure. Maybe a re-write by a someone fluent in English who does not work for Boeing would we good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 ( talk) 13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't the Spruce Goose be a Jumbo Jet? It is HUGE! It is the biggest plane in wingspan, height, and largest flying boat ever. K50 Dude ROCKS!
No, it's not a jet. 59.167.251.161 ( talk) 10:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
A jetliner with two passenger seating decks, one being twin-aisle the other single-aisle? 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 13:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
No, when the term was coined, it was simply used to explain the size of the plane compared to others of the era. The name was attached to the B747 more because it was the only jet of that size, which was typically used for passanger service. I expect if you look into things you'd find that the name was coined more as a marketing exercise by the airlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.251.161 ( talk) 10:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
why do jetplane leave smokeline while fly high on sky? pls mail me if anybody had answer (e-mail address removed)
Once a jumbo is landed, lights go on, and they look like a city in it's own capacity. Are there any pictures where a jumbo on it's own causes more light pollution than the island it lands on?-- 85.164.220.159 ( talk) 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Jumbo Jet is not a category of plane, it is a nickname specific to the Boeing 747. Other wide-body planes have other nicknames, like "Super Jumbo" for the A380. I admit I have seen some limited usage of jumbo jet to refer to non-747 aircraft (some reports of the recent SFO Korean Air 777 crash called it a jumbo jet)... I imagine a certain number of them just looked it up on Wikipedia.
While I readily admit that some people may use the term to apply generically to all wide-bodies, you might as well redirect Xerox to photocopy if that's the direction we are going. As an attempt at proof by Wikipedia, I will note that only the Boeing 747 page actually uses the term Jumbo Jet to describe the plane, and no other wide-body plane I can find does so except in reference to the 747.
In fact, it is in the first sentence: "The Boeing 747 is a wide-body commercial airliner and cargo transport aircraft, often referred to by its original nickname, Jumbo Jet, or Queen of the Skies." The A380's much less well-known nickname is buried once deep in the article: "Dubbed the Superjumbo by the media[79]", along with the titles of many references.
But see how silly it would sound to say: "The Boeing 777 is a long-range wide-body twin-engine jet airliner manufactured by Boeing Commercial Airplanes, often referred to by its original nickname, Jumbo Jet". (By the way, the 777's nickname is Triple Seven.)
Please read the blurb Where did the nickname “Jumbo Jet” come from? at the Seattle Museum of Flight. Granted, the museum is in Boeing country, but I think they can be authoritative on this issue. According to them, it was originally coined by media as a derisive term... I leave it as an exercise to the reader to dig up newspaper clippings from the 1960s to find the first use of the term.
Marcinjeske ( talk) 02:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Adding, noticed an article specifically discussing the 747: "Ask any passenger at any airport in the world: “Can you recognize a Boeing 747?” Chances are, even casual flyers will say, “Yes.” With its unmistakable hump and graceful lines, the Jumbo Jet -- so famous it earned its own nickname -- has been a familiar sight around the globe since it first flew in 1969." and also "The Jumbo Jet is no match for a world of high oil prices and new, fuel-efficient airplanes..." at Boeing 747 On Deathwatch: How Boeing’s New 777X Will Kill Its Jumbo Jet Predecessor, Once The Queen Of The Skies at IBN. Marcinjeske ( talk) 03:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.), I'm going to go with the original redirects as a compromise. The first version of Jumbo Jet, created 13 May 2002, made it the proper nickname for the 747, and that wasn't changed to the generic meaning for nearly four years. The first version of jumbo jet was created 14 February 2003, as a result of a move to Wide-body aircraft – that's right, the original 9 February 2003 "Wide-body aircraft" article was about jumbo jets! ...and pretty much reflected what I think is the everyday commoners top-of-the-head unsourced viewpoint of the matter. So that's what I'm going with. A hatnote for each. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 13:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
What you are arguing for is the equivalent of redirects such as:
Find one example where a redirect like that actually exists. Now, there are some cases where trademarks become genericised, like Zamboni machine but show me one case where a non-trademarked, generic term became commercialized by common usage. I'd never heard of the term JesusPhone before you mentioned it; that's too obscure to be considered a common generic term. If you want to redirect Queen Jet to the 747, and have sources for that usage, fine. Wbm1058 ( talk) 19:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
– There is no primary topic. See discussion in the section above. Wbm1058 ( talk) 12:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The moniker "jumbo jet" is not owned by Boeing or anyone else.Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
the term is "usually applied specifically to the Boeing 747." But this observation in no way suggests jumbo must be limited to 747s.Can you think of any other examples where a generic term redirects to a specific dominating product that is the primary topic for that term? I'd like to see some other precedents for this. One that just comes to mind is Zamboni machine. And they actually do have a trademark on the name, and are fighting trademark dilution. Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
most references to Jumbo jet still refer to the 747– you need to back that claim up with some actual examples. In the section above, BD2412 has provided several examples that do not support your premise. Here's another one. Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
This 1967 Popular Science article shows that the term jumbo jet had generic meaning from the beginning. It doesn't overly focus on a specific plane, but rather on the new concepts: two aisles, bigger engines, more lavatories, etc. It even mentions that Lockheed proposed a 900-passenger " monster". That word probably conjures up too many hideous images; thus the friendlier "super jumbo". The focus was on educating people about a new means of travel, not on glorifying a specific jet model.
But as I look at some more recent sources, I'm beginning to see the meaning of jumbo jet may indeed be evolving towards being a synonym for 747. That's probably due somewhat to its longevity. Still flying passengers, while the DC-10 is just flying cargo. For example, see the 2010 book Flight of the Titans: Boeing, Airbus and the Battle for the Future of Air Travel (funny, there's that word "monster" again, being used to describe the Airbus A380). On page 105, "there was a further piece of distinctive design that defined the jumbo jet: Its famous hump." OK, clearly a hump is not a defining characteristic of a widebody jet. When this author uses the term, they are talking specifically about the 747. Another example: United jumbo jet hull ruptures in July airport collision, Bloomberg, August 15, 2014. "The parked 747, one of only 24 jumbos at the carrier..." – I assume they mean United has 24 747s. When referring to another jet, the Boeing 777, its called "a wide-body model".
I think the DC-10 in its prime was commonly called a jumbo. But I see the Boeing 777, which seats about the same number of passengers, is now called a mini-jumbo, a term I don't think was used much in the early days of widebodies. Speaking of that, the 1967 Popular Science article never uses the term "wide body" or "widebody", even though it is talking about such aircraft in the generic sense. OK, the term has been around since the beginning, but has always been dwarfed by jumbo.
So, my question is, do you expect that, over time, after the last 747 has been retired and replaced by newer model jets, will the term "jumbo jet" only be used in a historical sense, and not to refer to any other actively flying jets? This may be possible, but I'm still not convinced. Widebody is kind of a clumsy word in comparison to jumbo. Wbm1058 ( talk) 02:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The usage of " jumbo jet" is under discussion, see talk:jumbo jet (disambiguation) -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 08:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)