Talk:Airbus A320 family/Archive 2

New generation
Comment on Airbus A320 family initial section paragraph three. The issue is with the duel reference use of “new generation”.

Original follows:

In December 2010, Airbus officially launched the new generation of the A320 family with the A320neo "New Engine Option".[8] The new generation offers a choice of the CFM International LEAP-X or Pratt & Whitney PW1000G, combined with airframe improvements and the addition of winglets, named Sharklets by Airbus. The aircraft will deliver fuel savings of up to 15%. Virgin America will be the launch customer for the aircraft in spring of 2016. As of December 2011, a total of 1,196 A320neo family aircraft have been ordered by 21 airlines, making it the fastest ever selling commercial aircraft.[9]

The initial “new generation” refers to the December 2010 launce of the A320 with the New Engine Option. The name of the new generation is A320neo.

The next sentence says the “new generation” offers new items of airframe improvements, winglets named Sharklets. The paragraph then expands the development by mentioning fuel savings. The paragraph then says this version will launch in 2016.

The use of “new generation” to describe the 2016 updated A320neo is confusing with the “new generation” of the 2010 Airbus. New language should be added to indicate that additions were made to the “new generation” 2010 version without calling it “the” new generation.

Suggesting: Companies do release upgrades to make minor releases of without a name change and possibly this is one. That is the 2010 got up graded to be A320neo. The still newer updates of Sharklets & etc may still be called the A320neo but the way the original paragraph reads is confusing as is. A “new generation” made in 2010 and soled many units isn’t the same “new generation” of 2016. Trouts2 (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)trouts2
 * Further improvements were made to the A320neo……which were….
 * The 2010 A320neo was further improved by the addition of………


 * Bit confused by your points, the "new generation" is the A320neo which was launched in 2010 for delivery from 2016 is the same thing, December 2010 was just the program launch. I have tweaked the words slightly to make more sense. MilborneOne (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Spam Advert complaint
This article appears to be some UNDUE Airbus promotion, e.g., the only remotely critical content is the last section mostly limited to a wikilink to an extra page about a dozen accidents, a valid reference for the last incident (which was no accident at all, and therefore not really cititical) was removed here and again on the accidents page. The overall layout with "operations" and "operational history" separated by "variants", which should be a part of "design", is confusing. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article follows the standard aircraft article layout of the WP:AIR/PC guidelines. And spam is not the same thing as being overly promotional of the topic, which the article as a whole is not. - BilCat (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was posting the same things and hit an edit conflict. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 one external links on Airbus A320 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131214160946/http://constructionreviewonline.com/africa-and-international-news/1420-airbus-begins-work-on-600-million-assembly-line-in-alabama to http://constructionreviewonline.com/africa-and-international-news/1420-airbus-begins-work-on-600-million-assembly-line-in-alabama


 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131017164328/http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/07_01_25_5000th_A320_EN.html to http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleaseS_items/07_01_25_5000th_A320_EN.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110712233832/http://www.i-a-e.com/media/facts.pdf to http://www.i-a-e.com/media/facts.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120402093036/https://www1.online.thalesgroup.com/col/Air_Transport/fiche_bfe/d_huds.html to https://www1.online.thalesgroup.com/col/Air_Transport/fiche_bfe/d_huds.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120609072558/http://www.pw.utc.com:80/products/commercial/pw6000.asp to http://www.pw.utc.com/products/commercial/pw6000.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081203105457/http://stagev4.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/executive_aviation/acj_family to http://stagev4.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/executive_aviation/acj_family/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100515180453/http://www.pw.utc.com:80/Products/Commercial/PW6000 to http://www.pw.utc.com/Products/Commercial/PW6000
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130514121210/http://easa.europa.eu/certification/type-certificates/docs/aircraft/EASA-TCDS-A.064_AIRBUS_A318,_A319,_A320,_A321_Single_Aisle-10-21122012.pdf to http://easa.europa.eu/certification/type-certificates/docs/aircraft/EASA-TCDS-A.064_AIRBUS_A318,_A319,_A320,_A321_Single_Aisle-10-21122012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sidestick controller in pic
The first cockpit photo text says, "Note the side-stick controller..." The side-sticks are not visible in the picture, being located behind the pilots on the respective outboard sides. Uninformed viewers might think that the visible controls in the centre are the "side-sticks" when in fact they are engine controls.--Death Bredon (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks I have removed the comment as the side-sticks cant be seen. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Airbus A320 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://constructionreviewonline.com/africa-and-international-news/1420-airbus-begins-work-on-600-million-assembly-line-in-alabama

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Airbus A320 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110235024/http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it:80/Mezzi/velivoliDotazione/Pagine/A-319CJ.aspx to http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/Mezzi/velivoliDotazione/Pagine/A-319CJ.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150618154932/https://www.staero.aero/downloads/2015/ST%20Aerospace,%20Airbus%20and%20EFW%20to%20launch%20A320%20and%20A321P2F%20conversion%20programme.pdf to https://www.staero.aero/downloads/2015/ST%20Aerospace,%20Airbus%20and%20EFW%20to%20launch%20A320%20and%20A321P2F%20conversion%20programme.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Breaking up
User MilborneOne suggested to me to break up the article Airbus A320 family into smaller daughter articles, such as Airbus A321, Airbus A319 and Airbus A318. I think this should be considered because the article I'm working on right now is pretty big – that's before my work is done. Any comments about this? Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!)  22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion started at WT:WikiProject Aircraft for anyone interested. This article would remain and there would be separate articles on the main models in the A320 family (A318, A319, A320, & A321). The family article would probably shortened after all the splits are done. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As nobody has objected please find Airbus A318 - still need to trim the data from this article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The A318 page looks good so far. If we're going to have articles on all the variants, it might be better to move this page (Airbus A320 family) back to [Airbus A320]], and not have a separate overview/family article. The A320 is the first model anyway, and all the others are variants of it, so this should be fairly logical and intuitive to readers. - BilCat (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks MilborneOne for starting us off with the A318 article. I would be in favour of a standalone Airbus A320 article (in addition to A319 and A321 of course), but would propose keeping the separate Airbus A320 family article which could be used to summarise the family development / timeline, with appropriate links to the standalone articles. SempreVolando (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the A320 model should be covered in the A320 family article or in its own separated article. Maybe that should be put off until after the A318, A319 and A321 articles have been split off. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's keep things simple. Wait for my myriad of edits on this page first, before creating daughter articles, because it can get messy. Sp33dyphil  (T • C • I love Wikipedia!)  07:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that a split can go far, because there is so much commonality between the variants. Yes, the "parent" article is long, but if some content was hived off to child articles but (quite reasonably) it retained content that's common to all variants, or to the programme as a whole, plus the briefest mentions of each variant before wikilining to an article on it... then the parent article would hardly be much shorter. And the single A320 label belies some substantial technical changes partway through the programme - I daresay the difference between a current A320 and the first one to roll off the production line is greater than the difference between current A319 and A320. However, if A318, A319 &c variants get their own articles I think it's reasonable & consistent to have one for the A320 variant. bobrayner (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can merge the article, Airbus A318, into this article.Maodi xn (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Airbus A319 now has a dedicated article. Two down, two to go. There may be several chunks of this article which can now be cut out and the A319 article referred to instead. SempreVolando (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Airbus A321 now added too. SempreVolando (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Numbers
Houston we have a problem with Airbus A320 family now added! "As of 31 December 2016, a total of 7,353 Airbus A320-family aircraft have been delivered, of which 7,033 are in service. In addition, another 5,645 airliners are on firm order." This is a common mistake in numbers after a break up, mixing A320ceo and A320neo families. As we now have two separate articles, i guess we need to decide weather if going to count together or separate production numbers. Gotech8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in Boeing 737, there are 9,335 produced as of last Dec 31. (not just the 1,125 originals), 1,988 Boeing 737 Classic, 6,455 Boeing 737 Next Generation and a few Boeing 737 MAX prototypes (note: 1125+1988+6455=9568?!). The coherent way should be to count every A320 in the present article, including the neo, and specifically A320neo numbers in its own article. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Marc is right in that this is an overview article for all of the A320 variants and should show the totals of 319/320/320neo/321, perhaps like the others it may be time to break out the A320 ceo into a sub-article like the other variants. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't the case for the 737 : there isn't a Boeing 737 original. Creating an A320ceo family would make too much honour for a low importance Backronym (not really a backronym but you get the point), I'm not sure it will still be used in 20 years. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lufthansa Airbus A320-211 D-AIQT 01.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lufthansa Airbus A320-211 D-AIQT 01.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 22, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-02-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

CSD
For goodness sakes, why in the world is this listed in "candidates for speedy deletion"? -A la d  insane   (Channel 2)  03:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Not now. That was probably vandalism; we should follow WP:Deny recognition. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus A320 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726144716/http://www.hellocompany.org/entry/airbus-steals-the-paris-air-show/ to http://www.hellocompany.org/entry/airbus-steals-the-paris-air-show/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2017
This is not a supersonic aircraft. The references to it as such should be removed. BrianHawkins (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good catch. It was vandalism that went unnoticed. --McSly (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

New page for A320neo
Is it time now for a new individual page for the A320neo? The 737 MAX has its own page and the A320neo is more evolved than the MAX (and has more orders). It would be really useful to see an order table for the 'neo'. Bthebest (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably so. It needs to have details on the neo itself and not just about each and every order and commitment announcement.  I have not see much detail on it in Aviation articles though.  Start by expand the New Engine Option section here. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at available sources, if this were some totally independent product it would probably have got its own article by now, going on source-count alone (wikipedia has no shortage of 3-sentence stubs). However, we already have this article as a convenient incubator and it would be counterproductive to create a stub at this stage when it fits so neatly into the existing A320 story. How about building a basic order table/list into the existing NEO section, maybe flesh it out with a few more sentences of prose and perhaps even some kind of image, then it'll be worth splitting out into a separate article. No? ( oops - forgot to sign this - bobrayner (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC) )


 * Support The A320neo made its first flight yesterday and it certainly feels like we should consider that. → εϻαd ιν  ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 13:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the test flight on Nov. 30 was of the first sharket (winglet) equipped A320; it is not a neo. See Airbus conducts first A320 'sharklet' flight. But starting a separate article does not have to wait for first flight or other milestone. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So when is the new page beiing started? Im happy to work on the page, but im quite bad at making a start as i am quite new to writing and editing in wikipedia Njirk 14:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with the honourable Fnlayson on milestones; but it's probably better if we improve our content here - the existing article is a convenient incubator - and then split it into a separate article when it has a bit more depth and breadth. No?
 * Njirk, if you need a hand with anything in particular, just ask! But in the meantime don't be afraid of adding content and sources &c. bobrayner (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heyy Bob! Need a little help here, i tried to start an article about the a320, still in the basic forms, copied the lay-out a little bit, but when do i know that other people can see my article? its on this site now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Njirk/A320neo Njirk (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good start. I have made some minor changes - hope you don't mind. Some more thoughts:
 * Airliners.net is probably not a reliable source. Was this from the a.net forums or from some copy of a press release?
 * Don't focus too much on a "conventional" image of an aircraft. Other images can be helpful too. If the vendor releases a computer-generated image and we can get the licensing right, that's OK but other images (specific components, assembly facilities, graphs, launch ceremonies, or even gantt charts) can improve an article too.
 * You might find this source useful. bobrayner (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - If the 737 MAX has its own article, then the A320neo deserves one as well.  ANDROS1337  TALK 18:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a small table in the NEO section to give a brief overview of the neo orders. I have also done a full chronological table that can be merged with Njirk's article when appropriate.


 * Generally, I'm happy keeping the A320 page as an overall family overview but think an A320neo page as well would be very useful. Njirk's page looks like a good start and I will try to add to that where I can. Bthebest (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support nothing new to add other than what people have previously said. --JetBlast (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am missing the NEO deliveries accounted for in the A320 _family_ page. This is not the A320CEO page. ZwergAlw (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no A320CEO Wikipedia page. This A320 family page primarily covers the A320 CEO family with a summary of the NEO summary. --Finlayson (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus A320 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160915235037/https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/TCDS_EASA%20A%20064_%20Airbus_%20A318_A319_A320_A321_Iss_22.pdf to https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/TCDS_EASA%20A%20064_%20Airbus_%20A318_A319_A320_A321_Iss_22.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: rename article
Proposal: rename the article, yes or no.

If there is support for yes, rename it, then it can be decided what to rename it. Some possibilities include "Airbus A320 Family" as this is what Airbus uses for the title of a webpage. http://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a320-family.html Nobody uses "Airbus A320 family" except Wikipedia, as far as I can see.

Another possibility is to name it "Airbus A320" because nobody uses "Family" much. If you ask a pilot, "are we on an Airbus A320 Family", they are going to think you are crazy. If you ask "are we on an Airbus A320", the pilot may answer "yes" or "no, A319". In support of "Airbus A320" is Airbus' own website where the introductory sentence is "The A320 is one aircraft in four sizes (A318, A319, A320 and A321) meaning it is the most successful and versatile aircraft family ever" http://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a320-family.html Vanguard10 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes Rename this. Vanguard10 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "If there is support for yes, rename it, then it can be decided what to rename it.", avoid this step and propose a new name already, with Template:Requested move (I won't support it though)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a productive comment. Maybe we should think what we want first. The current title "Airbus A320 family" is the worse. Even "Airbus A320 Family" is better. There is a possibility of "Airbus A320" based on Airbus' own reference to the series as the A320. See "The A320 is one aircraft in four sizes (A318, A319, A320, and A321)." The bad part is that Airbus didn't consult Wikipedia, ha ha. If so, there might have been the A320-100, A320-200, A320-300, A320-400, A320-500, where the A318 is the A320-500. Then the naming of the article would be simple. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * just propose what you want.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The current title is fine, as it is in keeping with other such aircraft articles on Wikipedia, such Embraer E-Jet family and Embraer E-Jet E2 family. The reason that "family" isn't capitalized is that it is not part of the official name, and thus not a proper name. - BilCat (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Family" is an official name. It is used by Airbus. Airbus doesn't use "family". I hate Airbus for putting us Wikipedians through this. See [] Vanguard10 (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose renaming. "Airbus A320 family" is used to cover all the A318 to A321 models since A320 is the common name for these.  WP:Aircraft has done similar naming with the Bombardier CRJ700 series along with the newer airliners mentioned above (thx BilCat). -Finlayson (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose to family because this is a Wikipedia made up name (there is weak reason to use Airbus A320 Family because Airbus uses it rarely. We see Fnlayson's reference to the Bombardier CRJ700 series. Why no Bombardier CRJ700 family?
 * Support change to Airbus A320. Airbus calls the entire series that as in "The A320 is one aircraft in four sizes (A318, A319, A320, and A321)." http://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a320-family.html Who is really to blame isn't us editors but Airbus for being so vague. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ^ This only counts as one vote; this may look like twice at first glance. -Finlayson (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per BilCat --Denniss (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME, "family" (lowercase f) unamiguously describes the subject. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. However, the original request was quite malformed. We should tighten the discussion.

A fundamental question should be whether or not the title "Airbus A320" should be used. I see the following points:

No, not Airbus A320 because
 * The A319 is three nineteen, not three twenty. Therefore, it shouldn't be "Airbus A320"
 * This could cause Wikipedia confusion because the A320 article would be about the series, not just the A320 variant, while the A318 article is about the specific variant.

Yes, Airbus A320 because
 * Airbus uses that when it writes "The A320 is one aircraft in four sizes (A318, A319, A320, and A321)." http://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a320-family.html
 * FAA also considers it that way when it writes "requirements applicable to crews operating A320 (A318, A319, A320, A321 are all related aircraft hereafter referred to as A320)" http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/fsb/a320%20rev%204.htm

I currently do not have a strong opinion yet. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Often in Wikipedia, there is inadequate discussion and someone puts a box around the section to end discussion. Let's keep this open at least a month or longer. Whatever, the decision is ok with me as long as it's not wild (like changing the name of the article to Boeing). Vanguard10 (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * One month (or two) from when this started discussion started would be more fitting than from some arbitrary later date. But these type of discussion rarely need to go that long. -Finlayson (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the original intention is that seperate articles will eventually be written on each of the series (the A318 and A319 have been done) and this will be an overview of the development of the "family" hence the name. Wikipedia is always a work in progress! MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a bad plan. Should A320 potentially have its own article separate from the A320 family article? I think it potentially should. Potentially as in not an automatic delete if one is started. If there is a reasonable A320 article started then I think the discussion about A320 family would likely conclude unless there is a user who feels strongly that there should be a discussion between A320 family and A320 Family. Vanguard10 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Rant (possible merger)
I still think it was a mistake to break up the A320 article into the 318/319/321. This is not done for the variants of the Boeing 737 Next Generation (-600,-700,-800,-900) or the MAX (7,8,9,10), which are similar to the A320 family in that they are merely stretches or shrinks. Also, currently the A320neo article is not split, whereas the A320ceo is, which is not consistent.

I think it would be better if the A318/319/321 were merged back into this. I'm not going to do anything, just want to make a suggestion. ElshadK (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support useless and hard to maintain multiple articles with exactly the same content. Redirects to relevant subvariant are enough.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge - All are sub-variants of the same main ceo variant. - BilCat (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Retroactively branded as...
I think the article lead should include a mention of the fact that the original A320 has been retroactively rebranded as the A320ceo following the introduction of the neo. Something like: “The Airbus A320 family, retroactively branded as the Airbus A320ceo family, consists of short- to medium-range...” ElshadK (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure the branding has been that retrospective, although it is used by Airbus it is not that widely used but it is already covered in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The name "Airbus A320 family" actually covers both A320ceo and neo lines. This article replicates that with the neo details mainly covered in the A320neo split off article. The wording in this article seems to match this. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A321 final assembly (9351765668).jpg

Main image
if you have not already noticed, I have changed the main image of the A320 in the top info box. the reason I did this is because I thought that the old Lufthansa A320 image being used was a very dirty looking plane. so I replaced it with a cleaner looking image of a Lufthansa A320 that will match the other heading images of the other A320 articles. I am aware that this new image was in use in the Lufthansa Flight 2904 article, so I switched that image with the old image that was in use, if you prefer the old image, feel free to change it back. this is just an experiment to see which image people prefer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:200:F9A:F9CC:5828:1040:D1A1 (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A320 redirect
Airbus A320 redirects to Airbus A320 family. It seems that it should more specifically target Airbus A320 family instead, which it did until this edit by (I realize it's a couple years ago, and that there has been discussion about family vs. individual aircraft). Is it OK to change the redirect to the more specific target? —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 23:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. Same goes for Airbus A320neo, which redirects to Airbus A320neo family, but I believe should target the more specific Airbus A320neo family. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 23:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Why? A320 is both the variant name and the family name. I don't see an issue with not linking to the sections in these cases. - BilCat (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I second BilCat, linking the redirect to the variant would be confusing.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article lead contains more information about the A320 than the specific A320 section. feminist (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)