Talk:Boeing NeXt

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

naming[edit]

Should this article be better called Boeing NeXt like the English version or Boeing PAV like the linked German one? --Leo067 (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing NeXt is a division of Boeing the PAV is now at Boeing Passenger Air Vehicle, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A double article was created without discussing the subject to an end here. It's against Wikipedia rules to have two aticle concerning the same subject but differnt names and it's neither fair nor working together in a good way. It's funny that the person who did the second article was to lazy to copy all links and got a complaint. --Leo067 (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One article is about the company/project, and one is about the intended aircraft. They aren't the same. Also, please comment on the subjsect, not the contributor. Calling a person "lazy" may be considered a personal attack, and in any event isn't assuming good faith,which are both against Wikipedia's rules. - BilCat (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the word wasn't neutral, but the links were all already existing and copy - paste is very few to do. Don't call it an attack, it's just a word. I wonder how you'd react, if you spent a lot of time with a serious text, linked with valid sources and another one shortens it, changes it to a different subject, and publishes a short and unfinished version of it. I don't know why primary sources are used there. As far as I know the Wikipedia rules tell to use secondary links (not the company's). --Leo067 (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications[edit]

Can anybody tell me please, whay all specificationshave been removed? They have been linked to serious sources and they are important. Please put them back again. --Leo067 (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article is about the company. If you need to add the sources from the article back here, that can easily be done, but a company article isn't appropriate for aircraft specifications. - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]