Talk:Bockscar
|
|
If the actual name is "Bockscar", shouldn't that be the name of the article? - Molinari 19:05, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Google thinks so:
- Bock's Car (795)
- Bocks Car (259)
- Bockscar (819)
That, combined with the fact that the US Air Force Museum Archives calls it "Bockscar" is good enough for me: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b3-35.htm -- Bill 19:12, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
"BOCK'S CAR"?
- As painted on the plane, the name is "BOCKS CAR" (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/bock-1.jpg); there's a small but clear space between the S and C. In my opinion, since "Bockscar" and "Bocks Car" don't parse, and "[Frederick] Bock's Car" does--and probably was a pun on Boxcar--we should call it that. My guess is that the apostrophe went the way of Neil Armstrong's "a" in "That's one small step for [a] man,..."
- —wwoods 03
- 02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bocks Car
Well, I'll give a reason for the third possible choice: I think the spelling on the aircraft should be definitive, grammatical or not, most commonly used or not. So I think the article should be titled Bocks Car, although the space between S and C is pretty thin, more the absence of an overlap than an actual space.
In any case, I've put a link to the above image on the article page and edited it to leave it to the reader to decide whether there's a space in there. 207.176.159.90 00:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)