Talk:City of Canberra (aircraft)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the City of Canberra (aircraft) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Article name
[edit]I disagree with the article name change to City of Canberra and the reason given ("no need to disambiguate"). There has been more than one aircraft called City of Canberra - the Boeing 707 preserved at the Qantas Founders Outback Museum is also named City of Canberra; and people may be looking for the city of Canberra instead of an aeroplane. YSSYguy (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- The current name shouldn't be a problem as long as we don't have articles on the other aircraft. Hatnotes can take care of linking to the actual city, and any other articles that cover the other aircraft in detail. Btw, the preferred way to dab an individual aircraft article is to use "(aircraft)" after the name, that doesn't matter at this point. - BilCat (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Apologies to Bilcat - I had not cited references.
[edit]Hi Bilcat,
You are correct - please accept my sincere apologies for not having included referenced sources.
I was going to include references, but then contemplated that amending the photo seemed less footprint compared to adding reference text. My mistake.
The puff of smoke visible in the linked photo is a true "moment in time" or "Kodak moment" that lasts but an instant. I appeal to your sense of cordiality that the 7:47 time of the 747 landing (specially designated as flight QF7474) was intended as recognition of precision instead of trivial, since it was the very intent (and achievement) of the organisers to land the 747 aircraft at 7:47am.
Would you forgive my previous lack of referenced sources and consider the addition?
Best regards, David
PS. The following references are simply available for your consideration - multiple are shown to indicate correlation and notariety, but I am not suggesting all of them are necesary.
Pre-planning (with direct mention of 7:47am planned)
Observations (with direct mention of 7:47am landing)