Talk:Boeing 757

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• F-22 Flying Testbed.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sky Interior 757 retrofit

Does Boeing really offer a Sky Interior retrofit for the 757? As far as I know Boeing's first-party retrofit is only certified for the 737NG. There are however some third-party retrofits that resemble the Sky Interior that are certified for the 757 family, such as those from Safran (which is installed om most of Delta's 757-200 fleet). ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 20:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Chronology suggestion

In the history of the aircraft it mentions that Japanese sales overtures failed in '82 and the first Asia region customers was Singapore in 1987. As this comes in the late '80s section it might read better to start with the information that Singapore became the first Asian customer in 1987 after initial marketing attempts during the launch in 1982 failed, with sales demonstrations to Japan airways not generating any orders. Fanccr (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding an "Operating History" section, and updating the article generally

I noticed other aircraft article such as for the Boeing 727 and Boeing 747 have "Operating History" sections in addition to the development sections. I think this article could really use having that broken off, as a lot of the writing in "Development" is much more suited for an "Operating History".

This would also be a nice place to fit in a "Retirements" section, as airlines such as American have retired the 757, and as United has announced retirement plans. 4300streetcar (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The section is named "Operational history" per WP:Air/PC. The aircraft project has generally not used Operational history for commercial aircraft since they can often have numerous and varied operators. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Image dispute

There's been some disagreement between me and @Gymrat16 on two images:

1.) For the image for the 757-300 section. I'm of the opinion we'd want an almost-exact side-on shot that shows the full length and slenderness of the 757-300 (similar to the Condor 757-300 picture in the "Stretched variant" section). The current image is taken at some angle, which makes the plane look shorter and not that different from the -200:

Current image:

Previous image:

I would prefer the previous image, though IMO there's also at least 2 other images of 757s in the Continental/United livery in this article and we probably want a bit more variety, so I'm open to other images, like Delta (though there are also existing Delta images). Maybe Arkia or some other smaller operator?

I also took this image last week that may be suitable (it's still United, but at least it's a different livery).

2.) The image of the Continental 757-300 in ==Further developments== was initially removed without explanation by @Gymrat16 ([1]), and then later replaced with the old United image from the 757-300 section above ([2]). After I changed it back, it was reverted with the explanation "continental does not exist anymore making that pic pointless".

Since the accompanying prose text mentions Continental installing winglets in 2009, I think a picture of a Continental 757 with winglets is suitable (whether a -200 or a -300), rather than a post-merger United one from 6 years later. 4300streetcar (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Since @Gymrat16 did not respond here yet (and instead tried to delete this topic entirely [3]), I'm going to copy their reasoning from the comment they left on my talk page:

"that pic you are showing above i can understand but in the others if buildings are in the background then they are not irrelevant like the las Vegas one was perfectly reasonable like the LA one and we should not be using defunct carriers especially if they are very similar to what is already being showed higher and lower in the articles and it kind of is because people unfamiliar with aviation and planes might get confused to what is what so having a continental plane in this day in age is NOT a bad reason it is actually pretty reasonable given that it has been 15 years now since that name being non existent. I understnad the "winglet" description but as I said there have been multiple post merger pics up and down and adding a long gone image with a similar scheme but a different name might confuse those who are unfamiliar with the subject. I understand and appreciate your passion and contributions but we need to think more constructively here." 4300streetcar (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

i deleted it cause i thought we were discussing i ton your page and you never gave me an answer back Gymrat16 (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean this was a somewhat different comment than what I made on my talk page and wasn't a straight copy-paste of what I wrote there, but it's understandable, and I'll try better to assume good faith from here on.

On the substance - I get concerns over confusing readers about two different airlines with the same livery, but:

1.) The === Further developments === section where that image was mentions Continental Airlines numerous times, including mentioning that they're the first winglet operator on both the -200 and -300, and was discussing events from around 15 years ago. The caption directly mentioned that the photo was from 2010 (when Continental still existed).

2.) The prose text directly next to the image mentions the existence of a United/Continental merger ("Prior to the United-Continental merger in 2010...")

3.) I'm not aware of any sort of consensus about not using images of defunct airlines. The article has pictures of Air Europe, Eastern Air Lines, and Monarch Airlines 757s (all defunct airlines), but you don't seem to have issues with those.

4.) Overall I think readers getting confused since Continental and post-merger United used the same livery is a really minor concern. I don't think it detracts from the article at all.

For the 757-300 section image - is there any particular reason you want that particular image of the 757-300? 4300streetcar (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

You said that really nothing on here is ever minor. And while others might have it, it would be more sensible to use airlines that aren't defunct if possible. I realize it may say "prior" right underneath but I believe that while others might be different, it shouldn't contain "defunct" carriers on a consistent basis and instead focus on carriers that do exist on a consistent basis especially if two are blended together like United and Continental since 2010. And there are already multiple other pics of the post-merger United so we should be staying consistent with that to the fullest extent possible as I said. Hopefully that makes a bit more sense. I understand that it may mention it in some paragraphs but there is a major difference between sentences/paragraphs and photos. Gymrat16 (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

"You said that really nothing on here is ever minor."

When did I ever say that? Do you have a link? 4300streetcar (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

look at your comment above dude Gymrat16 (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

You mean when I told you that you shouldn't be marking image changes as minor edits like you were doing?(e.g. [4]) That's a gross misinterpretation of what I said, and I said that in my talk page, not "above". 4300streetcar (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I meant above in your previous comments you numbered. Gymrat16 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok - where did I say that? Which numbered bullet? Can you point to where I said that nothing on here is ever minor? 4300streetcar (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

You said on your talk page "Also, changing images is almost never a minor edit, and you should not be marking those as minor edits. 4300streetcar (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)" Gymrat16 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this exactly what I pointed out 3 comments above? 4300streetcar (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

you said it is a "minor" concern and I am saying that there is a difference between what paragraphs say and images shown. we are only talking about this article not others and since this one already has one theme going, I believe that it should remain consistent with that. You had good faith in explaining yourself and by putting it but as I said, we should be a bit more prudent and clear on what is being said or shown. Gymrat16 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)