Talk:Grumman J2F Duck

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Confused?

Why is there a JF Duck article as well? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Because they aren't identical types. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which source(s) specify that both are different planes? And which are the main differences that justify having 2 articles? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He/she has a point. The Grumman J2F was a JF with a longer float and some other minor changes. BilCat is correct in saying they "aren't identical types," but neither is a Boeing 737-400 and a 737-800. Does Wiki have separate articles on each airplane? (I don't know. Maybe it does.)173.62.11.254 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have eight 737 articles: Boeing 737 (Original), Boeing 737 Classic, Boeing 737 Next Generation, Boeing 737 MAX, Boeing T-43, Boeing C-40 Clipper, Boeing P-8 Poseidon, and Boeing 737 AEW&C! - BilCat (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland

I agree that the expeditions to the crash in Greenland are notable, but do they really belong under "Survivors" as there is no expectation any part of the plan will be salvageable? I'm not quite sure what heading would fit better though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.129.124 (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way outdated

This article talks about "When Fantasy of Flight reopens in 2015..." FoF never reopened and never will.173.62.11.254 (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grumman J2F Duck. 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/20120325044407/http://www.planesandpilotsofww2.webs.com/Grumman2.html to http://www.planesandpilotsofww2.webs.com/Grumman2.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]