This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comac C919 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days

A news item involving Comac C919 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 May 2017.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Aircraft 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 been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project. China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

As of 31 August 2018, FlightGlobal recenses 305 orders

I have a problem understanding the verb "recenses" and I wonder if it is meant to be something different?

MarkofGiles ( talk) 22:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi all. I found the high capacity seating of the aircraft to be 190 from Simpleflying.com. Generally, I think some reportings from Simpleflying of questionable quality. I second source it from CGTN. My edit was reverted because it's considered an unreliable source. -- Now wiki ( talk) 21:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC) reply

[moved from User talk:Marc Lacoste, more relevant here]

Hi, I read your comment w/r/t your formatting reversion on the above-refrenced wiki page; seems fine to me. I added the row and column formatting on the delivery table to save myself some time in the future (had some spare time to figure out how to do the table formatting so I thought I'd add it now rather than having to figure it out again later when I'm more pressed for time). On the unreliability tags, my question is if "rzjets.net" and "planespotters.net" are generally considered to be unreliable, what is a better source; perhaps a better source should be cited for the C919 page.

Cheers, Spotty's Friend ( talk) 20:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Spotty's Friend: Indeed, the mainspace is not suited for experiments. You can use your personal space to try some formatting.

rzjets.net and planespotters.net seems to be self-published/user-generated content and fall under WP:USERGENERATED. Better refs for production lists can be aviation authorities, the manufacturer itself (I think it's the case for Airbus or Boeing), or reliable editor-supervised publications, like Flight International's yearly census. Cheers-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 22:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Marc Lacoste

Hi Marc, thanks for your reply. Just one comment: I understand your general concerns re "self-generated material", but it seems to me that your criteria for what constitutes a self-generated source in the field of aerospace may be a bit too strict since, for example, "Gunter's Space Page" (by a German national I think) which is widely cited by Wiki pages on orbital and suborbital rocket launchers may also qualify as a "self-generated source". Citing only manufacturers and traditional publications as sources in order to maximally shrink the informational error-bars ignore the often enormous efforts expended by enthusiasts (which include Wiki editors). Of course, this is only my peraonal observation.

Cheers, Spotty's Friend ( talk) 03:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Spotty's Friend: Using WP:reliable sources is paramount. Despite the scrutiny, even Wikipedia itself is not reliable enough to be used as a RS (see WP:Circular). I'm mainly interested in civilian aircraft, so I can't vouch for other fields, but it seems to attract less enthusiastic amateurs than rockets and military aircraft.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 08:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

It’s first flight May 27th 2023, it flew from Shanghai to Beijing. Source from Flightradar24. 173.214.158.63 ( talk) 02:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC) reply

copied from User talk:Mjroots

The above conversation refers to this revert of mine of an edit by Sayanpdd. Rosbif73 also reverted Sayanpdd's original edit. Rosbif, do you agree that Sayanpdd's source backs his claim? Mjroots ( talk) 09:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The Forbes reference mentions one analyst, Richard Aboulafia, who "suspects [the LEAP-1C] actually an upgraded version of the older CFM56" rather than a true LEAP variant – which is a bit on the light side for the WP:WEASELly "Experts believe". The EASA TCDS confirms that the -1C is approx 25% heavier than the -1A, but the leap from that data point to the claim in the text is pure WP:OR. So, while I initially reverted what was at the time an unexplained removal of sourced text, the removal does now seem perfectly reasonable. Rosbif73 ( talk) 09:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply