Talk:EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45/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 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)