Talk:Boeing/Archive 1

Arbitrary header
The Joint Strike Fighter was listed as a product on Boeing's homepage, but that was before the contract was officially awarded to Lockheed. If and when an article on the JSF is written, it might be a reasonable idea to remove the JSF from here and simply add a footnote to the JSF article that Boeing bid and lost. Maybe describe the design of their prototype there or something, I'm not an aircraft buff so I don't know the details. -BD

Hmmm, in all fairness I might just dispute the article's statement of Boeing designing the B-2 Stealth Bomber; AFAIK that honor goes to Northrop Grumman, with Boeing being part of the subcontractor team. Anyone care to comment on this? I'll correct it as soon as I have done a little further research. In the meantime, have a look at the B-2's home page over at NorthGrum Integrated Systems. –Wernher 03:43, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In response to your comments: Northrop Grumman is almost exclusively a management organization that the government uses to aid in program management. NG should get SOME credit for items in which Boeing was the 'subcontractor,' but Boeing actually did the work, and therefore, credit should be given where it is due. Boeing was only the subcontractor because there is another level of management that the government traditionally uses. In some smaller programs, the government opts to leave that extra level of management out.


 * Just look at the dates in the B-2 Spirit article - the design and production was for the most part carried out by Northrop prior to the merge with Grumman. Saying that Boeing designed the aircraft is flat-out untrue. ericg ? 02:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, dude. I believe the center section is Boeing, is it not? -Joseph 04:44, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

In 1903, the ingenuity of two brothers launched the United States on a flight path that would put an astronaut on the moon in a mere 66 years. Only a dozen years after the Wright brothers' famous flight, a Seattle timberman, William Boeing, was assembling his first seaplane in a boathouse. This was the humble beginning of the company that today produces more commercial jetliners than any other in the world. Leger 03:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

schema-root.org
This link looks fishy to me. It was added at the bottom of General Electric as well. -Joseph (Talk) 03:45, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Boeing IDS
If you are separating Boeing and Boeing IDS there should be at very least a link to the IDS Company on the main page of Boeing. The issue about Boeing not being a DoD company needs really detailed explanation as I have seen many reverts about people trying to add Boeing to the Category DoD contractors. No one says a Military Airplane is a Boeing IDS Conglomerate Subunit- they just say it’s a Boeing Plane. So to end the debacle add a link to the IDS page and give some detailed information on the separate entities and why it is this way from the Boeing company perspective. Supercoop 13:28, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
 * There *is* a link to IDS on the page. -Joseph (Talk) 13:45, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
 * What about the and part? 15:21, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

stock symbol?
Is there any reason to state "It is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol BA" when you already have NYSE:BA the line above it? I've seen a few pages like that and I'm wondering if there's a reason. Spangineer 18:07, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Two engine craft certified for ETOPS
"Despite having only two engines, the B777 is certified to fly routes over oceans and deserted zones (see ETOPS), and is being sold very successfully." From that statement, one can only infer that the plane can run on a single engine. That, in my opinion looks very unlikely. How the heck did 777 certify for ETOPS? Adding that information on the article would improve it considerably
 * Sign your name. It's a good thing for Boeing that they have facts instead your opinion that running on a single engine is unlikely. . &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:05, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)


 * Yeah, i kind of feel like a moron. In fact, i came across the information on the Boeing 777 article. It was hard to believe a single engine could sustain a freight, but considering the engine's power, i kind of can now see how it works. Just move the flaps to the point that the planes seize to have a circular movement. "
 * The 777-300ER has been tested flying with only one working engine for as long as six hours 29 minutes over the Pacific Ocean as part of its ETOPS trials. (Note: 3 hours successful and reliable operation of one-engine-out is sufficient for ETOPS 180 min certification, based on current rules.)"
 * I got a bit confused by your comments and looked it up so just to clarify for the rest, regardless of how long the plane may or may not be able to run, it's only certified for 207 mins by the FAA and 180 mins by the JAA/EASA. There has been a Boeing proposal to extent this but it has hit a stalemate due to EASA objections. Whether the FAA are overtly eager because it's Boeing or the EASA are stalling because it's Boeing not Airbus it anyone guess. However the ETOPS article does say several international organisations have objected (no mention of the names but if they're not European, they're less likely to be purposely stalling because it's Boeing not Airbus. Also I just noticed the ETOPS article says EASA have their own proposal so it seems to be more complex then just the EASA stalling or the FAA rushing Nil Einne 22:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also I wonder if we should rewrite the bit. It seems to suggest the 777 having ETOPS is unique when it's not. There are differences (it's currently the only to have the FAA 207min and the only one to be given quick 180min by the FAA) and more significantly, it's a longhaul plane cf the 767, A310 etc so it's more significant to desert and pacific routes but the ETOPS is not unique so I think the article need rewording Nil Einne 23:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind did it myself... Nil Einne 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Headquarters?
I thought this company moved their headquarters to Chicago, Illinois. --Hooperbloob 05:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Logo
Is the Boeing logo supposed to symbolize something? Maybe something flying around a globe, and ... some other angle-y line?


 * The logo was created from elements of the former Boeing logo and the McDonnell-Douglas logo. It was adopted shortly after the merger. It doesn't "officially" represent anything but my guess is that the swoosh is a stylized orbit -- representing Boeing's space business and the other object is an aircraft. Together they represent Boeing's "aero"+"space" business. That said, there was a lot of comment among Boeing employees that it looked more like Pinnochio than anything else. (Which turned out to be more appropriate than they anticipated!)--andersonpd 07:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Airliner Deliveries
Hi, I buy Airliner World, and am therefore able to get Airliner Delivery amounts for each month.

I am going to add a table of total deliveries for each month for the last couple of years

Cheers Reedy Boy 13:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Adding raw data. Can someone review and add to main article if suitable ?

Year 	Deliveries 1958	8 1959	98 1960	182 1961	122 1962	90 1963	59 1964	153 1965	208 1966	319 1967	471 1968	680 1969	498 1970	287 1971	213 1972	185 1973	242 1974	284 1975	255 1976	207 1977	156 1978	243 1979	360 1980	363 1981	359 1982	232 1983	266 1984	200 1985	285 1986	344 1987	374 1988	420 1989	402 1990	527 1991	606 1992	572 1993	409 1994	312 1995	256 1996	271 1997	375 1998	563 1999	620 2000	491 2001	527 2002	381 2003	281 2004	285 2005	217

A vs B : let's call it a tie
In both the Boeing and Airbus articles, it seems accepted that Airbus is leading. After so many years of being the pionneering follower, Airbus was so proud to reach the magic 50% market share figure that it was maybe a little fast in advertising it had become the world leading commercial aircraft manufacturer. Although this has been true for some years in terms of orders, and for two years in terms of deliveries (see ), Boeing still has a considerable lead as to the number of aircraft flying (3/4 of the aircraft flying today), and could just as well reclaim the leadership in the number of sales in 2005 or 2006.

To avoid constant modifications of the articles as to who comes first which year and on what figures, could we just call it a tie for a while ? I feel too new to Wikipedia to edit the articles themselves - are there any oldies to back me up on this ?

Suggested modifications in the Boeing article: '[Boeing is] with Airbus, one of the two largest civil aircraft manufacturers, [...]'

And in the Airbus Article: ' [Airbus is] one of the world's two largest commercial aircraft manufacturers, with Boeing.'

For those who want constant update on which comes first and which comes second (like tennis players ranking), you can have the airbus official figures here, and the boeing ones there

Also, very nice market forecast documents can be found at Airbus and Boeing

Mandarine (from Toulouse)--81.56.83.86 07:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Im fairly new aswell

I do think it would be a lot easier putting them both down as the worlds 2 largest aircraft manufacturers. Although airbus does have the larger share, it isn't by much.

I agree! Reedy Boy 08:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

They go back and forth yearly, and as it is basically Airbus/Boeing and then...............................................Embraer (or whoever it is) there is a HUGE gap between them and the next largest. I believe a rephrasing would be appropriate. I'll take a stab at it. A word to both of you though...this is Wikipedia...DON'T BE SCARED OF EDITING, EVEN IF YOU ARE A NEWBIE. There are no "suggested modifications". You can edit it yourself, so why waste time "suggesting" small things when you could actually change them? If you do something wrong, you will know about it within a very short period of time and it will be corrected or removed even before you are aware of it. It is all about collaborative effort. If everyone spent their time suggesting small modifications wikipedia would not be as large as it currently is. You can contribute as much or as little as you want. Keep that in mind as you go forward. And welcome to wikipedia! :) --IRelayer 21:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Im not, if someone else doesn't like it, they'll change it back

If you look at my contributions i have done quite a few, some been changed back, some with minor edits Reedy Boy 09:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, it seems clear that A has come from behind and is currently ahead. And based on future products, it looks set to extend its lead. B it seems, is betting its future on defence or other business.


 * Dear Anonymous User,
 * Please at least provide some sort of signature, even if you just hit ~.
 * Secondly, "extend its lead?" Airbus will have the delivery lead this year, but Boeing has a formidable sales lead this year. Industry consensus is that they have achieved long-term parity, and the year-to-year balance will rise and fall. To say that Airbus will "extend its lead" indicates a lack of perspective. Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you saying i lack perspective ? Please no personal attacks. You have your viewpoint based on orders. I have mine based on future products. Please note my comment starts with "Personally", and is my attempt to indicate that it is merely a personal observation. Also please dont read "extend its lead" out of context. It reads "based on future products, it looks set to extend its lead".
 * Anonymous User

Largest civil aircraft manufacturer
It is by orders but not by deliveries.

Airbus has had more orders for the last 5 years. It is only this year that Boeing has had more. (at least as of November 2005)

Airbus continues to have more deliveries.

Most news organisations describe Boeing as the 2nd largest. eg 218.111.22.126 10:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The politics
Don't want to get into the largest dispute but anyone reading these articles (Boeing, Airbus and the planes) should observe the complexity of the politics behind them all. It's far from being just a US vs Europe deal. Japan and their airlines have had very close ties to Boeing for obvious reasons. China made a load of Boeing orders this year, but it appears this was more of a political move then because of the technical or price merit. Incidently, China appears to have a closer tie to Airbus to some extent but are not stupid enough to let that get in the way of using the competition to their advantage. Airbus says the 7E7/787 is utterly crap and destined to fail until they finally come up with a decent A350. Boeing evaluate the superjumbo jet but decide it'll be a bad idea to for both of them to join in to the market so spend the next few years dissing the A380 until they come up with a workable 747-8. Still each side has their respective 'crown jewel' (A380 or B787) and so keep on claiming their 'way' (long distance or high passengar load) is the way of the future and dissing the alternative view while quitely trying to get people to take their alternative (B747-8 or A350) knowing that both views are of the future. Meanwhile if an airline decides to go down a certain route, they hype their choice and diss the alternative... China is the next hot thing so everyone decides to have as many 8s in their model names as possible. Airbus+Europe and Boeing+US accuse each other of relying on government subsidies in one way or another (which is mostly true) and keep on making threats and posturing but I think we know neither side really wants the WTO to evalute their practices. Each side offers goodnessknows what kind of deals to get people to jump on the bandwagon fast and to stay on the bandwagon while each airline and government does their best to manage the complex political and competitive aspects to get the best deal for themselves. Nil Einne 20:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This article has recently been linked from Boeing, a high-traffic Internet site???
Perhaps I am mistaken, but i find no source from this. And is boeing.com a high traffic internet site? Mceder 07:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find any reference to this, as well as no response from the user who added it. Removed high traffic tag. Mceder 07:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Boeing" or "The Boeing Company"?
I'm just a newbie but is it common practice to have the main article listed under the short name of the subject entity? I would expect the article to be titled "The Boeing Company" with the "Boeing" entry redirected to "The Boeing Company". Of course, the opposite is the case.

Is this typical or exceptional? Am I being too fussy? Or is it difficult to make the change? Does anybody object if I make the change?

I won't do anything until someone more experienced weighs in, but I'd like to see the title changed to "The Boeing Company". andersonpd 02:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you, Paul. Typically you'd see the redirect FROM "Boeing" TO "The Boeing Company" where the article actually resided.  That is, after all, the actual name of the company we're talking about.  I'd definitely propose moving this article to its correct location and swapping the redirect - unless someone can provide some reason this hasn't already been done.  --ABQCat 00:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Corporate Blogging
Will someone introduce Randy's Boeing Blog considering the attention its been getting in the corporate world. 

just a thought. --ConradKilroy 06:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

List (or category) of Boeing aircraft?
Is there some reason why there is no comprehensive list of Boeing-made aircraft, or am I just not finding it? Stan 15:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a huge list. It was large, unwieldy, and ugly. They were reformed and split off into Boeing Commercial Airplanes and Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. Don't you agree that the Boeing article is big enough, as it is? &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Airbus anonymous editor
An editor made a series of anonymous edits at Airbus and Boeing just a few minutes ago. Their IP address was 195.6.25.118, which belongs to Airbus SAS. I don't know if this is the first occurrence, but it strikes me as an enormous conflict of interest. Perhaps Boeing employees have done the same thing, but they haven't yet been caught at it. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not Boeing employees... we've they've got ethics!
 * Seriously though, I don't see it as an automatic conflict of interest. WP:NPOV applies the same whether it comes from an editor at a corporate IP or the same editor at their home IP. I also think that there are enough editors watching the articles to keep each one "honest". McNeight 19:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is a big deal being made out of this? Airbus employee or not, they're a common vandal and their behavior was spotted. I'm not sure why you (or someone else, or whomever - I have no idea how this happened) passed this on to Flight Global, who of all things made it a front-page news item. ericg ✈ 19:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It was me, and actually, all I did was Cc them on it when I mailed the Airbus webmaster and postmaster. I just wanted someone else to see it. The article's author asked me for more info about it, so I provided the links to edit history, the IP address, and a link showing that it was an Airbus IP. I was surprised to see it show up on the front page of their website. I'm not sure where the "increasingly concerned" part came from though that they mentioned in the article. Must be a slow news day. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Last Douglas A/C
Gah, I made an edit to the statement about the 717's end of production, under the impression that it was referring to the 717 production end signifying the end of the Douglas-designed era, with the C-17 really being the last.

Giving it a bit more thought, that's not true on either count though - in hindsight, it appears that the original intent was to point out that the 717 was simply the most recent design by the company, and there are other Douglas designs still in production (Export F-15's come to mind). Mea culpa -- kcm


 * Those are really McDonnell aircraft. The Apache is a Hughes design. The C-17 really is the last Douglas aircraft. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 11:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The C-17 is a MD airplane. The 717 as the 3rd generation DC-9 is the last Douglas airplane.   -Fnlayson 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

it does redirect back to Airbus Idustries and i found this website of Airbus personnel right here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kell65 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 777 image
I apologise for any confusion -- I typically hear more complaints when I am not replacing the image when doing cleanup. Here is a bunch of free, reusable images of the Boeing 777. Jkelly 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference needed
The very first sentence -- 'Boeing is the world's largest aircraft manufacturer' -- needs referencing, this position being contested (and taken, I thought) by Airbus.--DragonFly31 13:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Boeing makes military and civilian aircraft. Airbus, while owned by EADS and BAE Systems, has a much more limited scope. Airbus had more civil airframe sales last year; Boeing sold very slightly less, but the value was higher. ericg ✈ 16:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft Matrix - Boeing vs. Airbus vs. Others
I have created a aircraft matrix that lists airlines, sorted by the size of thier fleet, which aircraft from Airbus, which aircraft from Boeing, and other aircraft in thier fleet. It can be found at user:Mnw2000/Airlines-Aircraft Matrix. I think it should be link at Airbus, Boeing, Embarer, etc. as well as all alines pages. Can some assist me in that effort?

Here is a sample: --marc 18:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)--[user:mnw2000]

I would be glad to help! [User:Kell65|Kell65] 8:40, 24 February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kell65 (talk • contribs)

Focus on commerical airplanes

 * This article is on the entire Boeing company. It is thin of Military Aircraft and Space hardware/rockets. - Fnlayson 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuits
Wasn't Boeing sued for breach of contract, by refusing to sell McDonnell Douglas airplanes to those airlines that had options by contract to buy more aircraft?--Vercalos 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it. When did that happen?  -Fnlayson 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
What does B&W in "Before 1950s" means? Is this the name of plane (possibly named after cofounders boeing & Westervelt), or name of type of planes (like jet)? Read article isn't enough here. I had to search google to find out answer.

Washington address
Does anyone have the corporate address in Seattle? Chris 01:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Boeing has multiple sites (like 4) in the Seattle area. Which one?  Corporate HQ is in Chicago.  I looked for a general web page listing the sites/locations, bur couldn't find one..  -Fnlayson 04:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Time
In May 2005, Boeing announced its intent to form a new company, United Launch Alliance with its competitor Lockheed Martin. The new company will be the sole provider of rocket launch services to the US government. The joint venture is expected to gain regulatory approval and be complete near the end of 2005. ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.0.62 (talk • contribs).
 * That's been updated with friday's announcement. -Fnlayson 02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Boeing Subsidies?
Does anybody know of a possible citation that could be used for these Boeing subsidies? Tax breaks are subsidies? I'm not aware of *any* tax breaks that Boeing gets which Airbus would not also receive for any manufacturing it would do in the states. IMHO these spurious accusations of subsidies for Boeing only appeared after Airbus began to feel the heat in the WTO for it's huge loan guarentees that insulate it from ever needing to accept risk for product development cost. Now THATS a subsidy!

Zebulin 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I found a good source for subsidies that aren't tax breaks or military contracts or other inappropriate concepts of 'subsidies' and placed the citation in the article.

Zebulin 17:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1970's section
I was reading the section and came across this sentence: "Boeing did not receive one single order during more than one year"

Someone want to explain what that means? Did Boeing not receive a single order for a period of more than one year? Either way, perhaps it should be rephrased.
 * I changed 'during' to 'for' in the sentence. -Fnlayson 20:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Employment
I am wondering if it'd be worth mentioning the employment dynamics in the article, for example that in the early 2000-s, Boeing laid off tens of thousands of people (some 20,000? or more?) in Seattle area alone ( in 2001 and more over the following years), which must've had quite an impact on the economy of the region with them being one of the major employers. I am afraid I don't have reliable sources to cite for accurate numbers and the sequence of events, but if someone interested in economics could write about this, I think that'd be appreciated by many. - Introvert  •  ~  05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That'd be OK to mention lay-offs in the relavent spot with sources cited. But Boeing is a worldwide company.  The focus should not be too much on one area, such as Puget Sound, imo. -Fnlayson 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering Boeing's current employment of 150,000, laying off a full eighth of their workforce - regardless of location - should be considered worthy of emphasis. ericg ✈ 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments ~ yes, the disconcerting sight of their near-empty assembly building at Boeing Field struck me, a few years ago. A mere mortal :), I'm interested in the today's dynamics: I was reading about their alliance with Lockheed and some of the research and re-design that they seem unfolding, also about fleet expansion and orders for aircraft placed with Boeing by major carriers such as Lufthansa or Alaska, and does it seem that they may be winning over Airbus, too. So it caught me curious, are they ever going to hire big? or if they do, then might that happen in the Puget Sound area, at that. I'm hopeful that somebody someday will help with good info on this. Thanks again, and regards - Introvert  •  ~  02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the situation is far more complex than that. One has to consider that many of the lost employees were rehired. Many of them moved to other departments (chiefly IDS.) And many of them were spun off (Spirit, etc.) &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your's a quick and clear answer to my long-winded question, I guess... (perhaps also explains why the information isn't easily available) Thanks again -  Introvert  •  ~  05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Headquarters picture
Can the Boeing headquarters picture caption specify which building it is? From the picture, I can't tell if if it's the front building or the taller building behind it. enderminh 21:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Try clicking on the image and look at it full size. It looks like one building to me.  There's a Boeing logo near the top of the tall part and a Boeing sign by the doorway of the shorter segment. -Fnlayson 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can get a new picture and send it to wiki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.164.143.111 (talk • contribs).
 * Why? What's wrong the current one? -Fnlayson 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for removing timeline graph



 * 1) It says "Plasecki", should be Piasecki
 * 2) It says Piasecki merged into Boeing in 1941, should be 1960.
 * 3) It says Hughes Aircraft Company merged into MDD in 1984?? No! It was acquired by General Motors in 1985 and renamed Hughes Electronics.
 * 4) Hughes Helicopters, Inc. was what MDD acquired.
 * 5) No recognition of the fact that Raytheon acquired a massive chunk of Hughes Electronics.
 * 6) No recognition of the fact that the satellite division remained independent until 2000.
 * 7) That's the history I know about. Others should check that the creator hasn't mangled more of the history. Mark83 23:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, McDonnell Douglas acquired Hughes Helicopters in 1984. That's where the Apache, MD-500, and other helos came from.  And the commercial helo products were spun off to MD Helicopters in 1998 (approximately). There's been other sales like the Rocketdyne part recently. -Fnlayson 23:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur on the removal and mistakes. It looks like they switched the "Hughes Aircraft COmpany" and "Hughes Tool Company Aircraft Division" dates. The Hughes Aircraft and Hughes Helicopters history is confusing anyway. From the Hughes Helicopters page (some of which I researched and wrote, to be transparent):
 * Hughes Helicopters ... began in 1947 as a unit of Hughes Aircraft, then was part of the Hughes Tool Company after 1955.[1] It became the Hughes Helicopter Division, Summa Corporation in 1972, and was reformed as Hughes Helicopters, Inc. in 1981. However, throughout its history, the company was informally known as "Hughes Helicopters". - BillCJ 00:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If we sorted a list of companies/dates and asked User:Emoscopes (or another willing user up to the task) very nicely, maybe they could produce the Boeing equivalent of Template:BAE Systems evolution. Not only is it clearer, but would provide a nice consistency between two major aerospace company articles on WP. Mark83 00:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)