Talk:EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45/Archive 1

Archive 1

KC-X article text

Talk for KC-X (from KC-X article before a series for moves) was moved to KC-X. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

KC-30 or KC-45?

What's it called now? KC-45 is in the title but the text refers to KC-30? 84.115.129.76 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Note this was left on the Talk:KC- 45 page which was orphaned. Woody (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• KC-45 is offical US designation. This text was originally copied from the A330 MRTT article. Give it a little time to get everything corrected... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

KC-30 was just the project name (not a US military designation) used for the Northrop/Grumman/EADS submission. MilborneOne (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Right. Australia is getting the KC-30B (A330 MRTT). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Article name

I chose Northrop Grumman KC-45 as the article name in accord with the WP:AIR naming conventions. Rightfully, I could have chosen Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45, but I felt adding "EADS" was unnecessary, and made the title too long. Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor on this version, although EADS in the major partner. ALos, I chose "KC-45" rather than "KC-45A", as the naming conventions specify the simpliset name/designation, and becuase there may be "B" and "C" versions in the future. Generally, WP:AIR doesn't use the variant letter in the title unless the page is a variant article for a type with a main page, such as F/A-18 Hornet, and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The KC-10 Extender and C-17 Globemaster III have no variant letters beyond "A", but do not show the "A" in the Aritcle name.

As Northrop Grumman is a US contractor, and the USAF is, well, the USAF, this article should use US spelling conventions. This was one motivation for creating a separate article for the KC-45, rather than trying to keep in with the Airbus A330 MRTT, as that article uses British/Commonwealth spelling. The KC-45 will also be assembled/completed in the US (Mobile, AL), and have largely US systems, thus it will in many ways be a different aircraft than the A330 MRTT and KC-30B. THis also saves us from arguing over what a combined page should be named! - BillCJ (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with BillCJ all appears to be logically and within project precedents. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

KC-45 -> KC-45A

I believe this articles title is not correct, as it should be KC-45A, KC-45 should redirect there, instead of the way it is now. There are sources in the article right now that provide a source for that. Whale plane (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

KC-45 is correct. The current model is A, hence KC-45A, but as the aircraft evolves their will probably be newer models and the desiganator will change to KC-45B and so on. Aircraft articles are titled with the base level. See C-130 for an example. If you look down through you will see the various models of the C-130. There are redirects to the subsections of the main article for different models of the C-130, see C-130J. Jons63 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I see now. Didn't take into account that there could be other versions based on this platform entering USAF duty in the coming years/decades. Whale plane (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

More moves

The article was once again moved, this time backe to KC-45, per this diff. The edit summary stated: "Standardized with other US Military Aircraft." Very intersting comment, since I know of very few US military aircraft articles (actually, none come to mind) that are at the designation only.

For those who are unaware that naming conventions exist, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) state:

US military aircraft: Number and name. F-15 Eagle, P-47 Thunderbolt. Where there is no name, or where the name is not in general use, use the manufacturer and number instead: Lockheed U-2, Convair B-36, General Dynamics F-111.

If you disagree with the conventions as applied here, then either propose a move to your preferred name to try to gain a consensus in support of your move, or try to get the conventions changed. Until then, it would be nise if the page would stop moing - I'm getting dizzy watching it! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good thing I missed this move and move back. I'm still a little dizzy from all the KC-X article moves. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)