Talk:Martin XB-68

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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

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.

Move to Martin XB-68

This article seems to be the odd one out, in that it is titled using the manufacturer's designation instead of the usual US military aircraft designation, which is the case for basically all other similar articles I've come across so far, including the ones about models that never went beyond the blueprint stage (e.g. Martin XB-27, Lockheed XB-30,Douglas XB-31 etc).
Any objections to moving this article to Martin XB-68, which is currently a redirect to this article? --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question, sounds like the B-68 designation was later reassigned from the Martin 316 to the Titan missile (which was actually built, unlike the Martin 316), so the argument for moving the article is not as compelling as I initially thought. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a long-held misconception. Up to "B-67" missiles were designated as if they were bombers. However, starting with "-68", the bomber (B-) and "strategic missile" (SM-) sequences were split - note for instance that the -68, -69, and -70 numbers were all assigned to both bomber and missile projects. While at a glance it looks logical, the fact is that "B-68" was never assigned to the Titan. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as it was the official designation of the project, with (as mentioned above) no ambiguity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat, you may want to comment, as I see that you originally moved Martin XB-68 to the current title Martin 316. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]