Talk:The Ruptured Duck (B-25)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact from The Ruptured Duck (B-25) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 16 February 2008.

	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.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

	This article is within the scope of the Military history 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 regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

New article: please comment. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC).

As for the merge proposal, the original article and this present one are really two different articles, each with a different focus. Merging them will lose the information on the Ted W. Lawson article. My counter proposal would be to keep the Lawson article, and add two other articles on his crew members, but to keep this article as an aircraft history. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC).

How will "Merging them will lose the information on the Ted W. Lawson article". I'm not talking about merging anything from or concerning the Ted Lawson page, but the history that is already at the existing redirect page which was about the aircraft. I think were separated by the same language again, per Churchill's wit! - BillCJ (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I also don't understand that sentence. I have to say that this article is quite different from the previous one, which was as I put it on the Ted W. Lawson talk page, 90% about Lawson which is why I originally redirected it to there and merged in the relevant info. However in its current state a lot of the info in this article now is about the raid, which would be more suitably linked to as {{main|Doolittle Raid}} while focusing on the Ruptured Duck's role in it. So the same issue is there as with the previous incarnation, but with a different focus now. The crewmembers on the Lawson page could be merged into here, keeping Lawson standalone and focused on him entirely. They could use sources though. The original stub articles were unsourced. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 04:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cut and paste holding pen

I have added the page to the "cut and paste holding pen" for the page histories to be merged, but it might not be needed as it came for a subpage. Snowman (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Appreciation to the editor who merged the page and the subpage histories. Snowman (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The

Can it be explained why there are different versions of the name of the aircraft. There is "Ruptured Duck" on the noseart image and "The Rupture Duck" elsewhere. Snowman (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Officially, the name of the aircraft was "The Ruptured Duck" although as you can see the nose-art pointedly had only the words, "Ruptured Duck." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC).