Talk:AIM-174B

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus to keep current name. If other variants appear in the future, this can be revisited. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AIM-174B → AIM-174 – Might as well eliminitae the "B" per WP:CONCISE -- the "AIM-174B" is *technically* a specific variant of the AIM-174. Also allows for future variants (a hypothetical AIM-174C, for instance) to be added with no issue. Attempted to move myself, cannot; re-direct exists. MWFwiki (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 21:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems more than reasonable given there are no unrelated variants that "AIM-174" would include. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It's probably a harmless change, but also unnecessary because as far as I'm aware we don't know of any other variants that specifically use the AIM-174 nomenclature for the prefix (I'm specifying to exclude the captive carry and experimental trainers, for which we don't typically make a separate article and are at best a single-sentence mention in the main article). Put another way, until such time as future variants exist, any reference to the AIM-174 is almost certainly a reference to the AIM-174B specifically. So while I don't really care either way regarding the move, all things being equal I probably would just leave the page as-is for now until such variants exist. Put another way, WP:PRECISE is as important as WP:CONCISE, and we're not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I'd say we are indeed getting into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory when we're assuming what variants will or won't be put into service, which one(s) will emerge as the primary variant, etc; That being said, a reasonable assumption and preparation is that variants will almost certainly be added. Point being, we aren't assuming or predicting anything with "AIM-174..." we are with "AIM-174B." There is nothing imprecise about "AIM-174," either… no one is confused by it nor does it impede locating the article. There is also little to no WP justification for the 'B' variant — even as the only known operational variant — subsuming the article title. Especially not when the "AIM-174B" will be mentioned in the intro/lead, in boldface, and we could even move it up. MWFwiki (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, this extra disambiguation that is not clearly needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I agree with Swat Jester. His reasons are why I chose to move the article to "AIM-174B" instead of "AIM-174". More specifically, the AIM-174B is a variant of the RIM-174B,.not the -A or the -C. We know right now that there are no other publicly revealed variants in published reliable sources. However, assuming that there will be other variants IS using a WP:CRYSTALBALL. BilCat (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - If there was more consensus amongst sources, I'd agree to the move. However, there are credible websites that do refer to the missile using the B title, such as the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Therefore I would keep the status quo for now. John Smith's (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Close (no consensus) reverted - I received a message on my talk page indicating some additional info (and the realization that this may have been moved already without discussion, which is something that should be considered here) and will be including that message below and relisting this, just in case.

• Here is the revision where the page was moved: Special:Diff/1245266991, showing that the original title was AIM-174 air-to-air missile, per WP:RMUM this could have been reverted without a discussion. Since this is already ongoing, I will just leave that here for consideration so we hopefully don't have to re-hash this again. No opinions from me (and I'm probably involved at this point anyway)

ASUKITE 21:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me just point out that we do actually have examples of a missile page for a specific variant: BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile which is separated from the main Tomahawk (missile family) article for a number of reasons. I'll also point out, that it's simply nonsensical to make the argument that somehow AIM-174B is the real crystal ball violation, given that it's the actual designation of the missile, right here, right now, today. And MWFWiki, you haven't established that the disambiguation is unnecessary. There are certainly arguments for why the disambiguation would make sense -- for instance, with the title AIM-174, there's room for ambiguity over whether a user was actually searching for the air-to-air missile, or made a typo when searching for RIM-174. With the title AIM-174B there is little to no ambiguity over that question -- we know exactly what they're searching for. I do not find your interpretations of WP:CONCISE or WP:PRECISE persuasive. I also think the mentions of the XAIM-174B, CATM-174B, DATM-174B, to be further in support of why it makes more sense to keep the title as is. Those are all specific purpose training or testing variants of AIM-174B in particular: one is the former experimental name while it was a prototype, one is the captive carry test variant, and one is a ground-training variant. In all three of those cases, they are specifically a spinoff of the AIM-174B; were there to ever be future operational versions of the AIM-174 series in the future, they would get their own test and training variants; these three missiles would *not* be direct variants of them. In any event, while I think moving this page would be harmless, I also think it'd be incorrect and it should probably stay as is for now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. The page should be reverted. AIM-174B was moved-to with no discussion. I don't really care how you feel about my interpretations. I have listed numerous WP violations and WPs in support of a move to AIM-174. All I have heard in-return is "I disagree." I will press this all the way to a review if I must. "AIM-174" is perfectly appropriate. At the very LEAST it should be reverted and a clear consensus developed before a move back to AIM-174B. MWFwiki (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to add here that I reverted my close as a matter of courtesy, as I always want to see more discussion whenever possible – so many move discussions never have anywhere near the level of attention or participation they often deserve or need.

  Under normal circumstances, an undiscussed move can be reverted. As this is such a discussion, in which we can arrive at what will hopefully be a stable title, its existence (and the policy-backed opinions of the responding editors) can (and should) override the original title, as that is its purpose. Noting here that the title was moved without discussion is only another talking point, but not enough to entirely negate this ongoing discussion and start over. For the record, it was moved in good faith and with a good reason.

  If this does close again as "No consensus", and further discussion of the original title doesn't prove fruitful here, I would suggest simply starting a new RM at that point to address that issue, but as editors have already put forth their opinions here, it would be more productive to proceed until somebody else is able to close this. Threatening to go to WP:MRV before a move has even closed is probably going to be counterproductive. ASUKITE 00:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MWFwiki I've been on Wikipedia for over 18 years, and I have a lot of experiences with page moves. The original title was unsuitable, and so, as an experienced page mover, I moved it to what I felt was the best title. I was not required to have a move discussion first, nor should I have been required to do so, per WP:BOLD. It went unchallenged for a week. Unfortunately for you, a no consensus decision will result in this article staying here. That's how consensus works here. And anyone who closes it otherwise will find that close being challenged. You are totally misunderstanding WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE, and are incorrect in your interpretation of them. That could have been determined at a move review, but unfortunately the closer reversed their decision. Now we have to keep discussing this issue with you, and then take it to the inevitable move review. I have no problem with the fact that you disagree with me. But please stop casting aspersions on me or my motives for moving the article. If you keep it up, I will take your behavior to WP:ANI. BilCat (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take this wherever you like. I have not "cast any aspersions." You moved this page without review or discussion. That is not an "aspersion," that is a fact. Again, if you disagree with my interpretation, that is your issue to deal with. MWFwiki (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because this has spilled-over into separate discussions, I'm not sure when the next time I'll be free, and my argument(s) in favor of moving the page to "AIM-174" are fragmented, I'm re-listing my argument here, condensed:
1. Titles should be recognizable and commonly used names for the subject. The term “AIM-174” is freely-used -- admittedly alongside "AIM-174B" -- among sources^[1][2][3] and is easily recognizable.
2. WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE emphasize titles should be concise and precise, obviously. The title “AIM-174” is sufficiently precise to cover the entire missile family, including the AIM-174B variant. It avoids unnecessary complexity and redundancy.
3. WP:CONSISTENT, virtually all missiles -- especially air-to-air missiles -- use the base model as their article title. While the IM-174B is the only known operational variant, does that mean we should change the AIM-54 Phoenix article to "AIM-54C," given that, at the end of the Phoenix's life, it was the only operational variant? EDIT TO ADD: Per WP:CONSISTENT, see: AIM-4 Falcon, AIM-26 Falcon, AIM-47 Falcon, AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-54 Phoenix, AIM-68 Big Q, AIM-82, AIM-95 Agile, AIM-97 Seekbat, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132, AIM-152 AAAM, AIM-260
4. WP:DISAMBIG, WP:PRECISE; the current title “AIM-174B” may imply that there are multiple significant variants that require disambiguation. However, the primary subject of the article is the AIM-174 missile as a whole, with the AIM-174B being a variant, in-line with US missile naming conventions. Using “AIM-174” as the title encompasses all possible variants without the need for additional disambiguation or future discussion.
5. WP:CRYSTALBALL, we are not assuming anything in using "AIM-174." We are, in my opinion, doing-so with the use "AIM-174B."
6. No one has made any attempt at editing the body or lead, which opens with "AIM-174." Indeed, as it stands currently, "AIM-174B" is not mentioned until the end of the intro. Indeed, I would argue that as a compromise, we could move the mention of the "AIM-174B" up to within the first sentence or two.
MWFwiki (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as to why those arguments are not persuasive: Point 1 is self-admittedly equally applicable to AIM-174B; Point 2 fails to capture that AIM-174B is definitionally more precise (in that it refers to the actual name of the only variant in operational service and universally all references to AIM-174 at this point refer to the AIM-174B), while not being any significantly less concise (literally by 1 character); Point 3 is an "other wrong things exist" argument that ignores that we do not have a single consistent naming scheme for missiles (some are referred to by exact designation, others by general family designation, others by family "name", and others by an index number); Point 4 makes no such implication that you've suggested because there is no "AIM-174 missile as a whole," there is simply the AIM-174B variant and a couple of non AIM-prefixed training models; however having the page at AIM-174 does -- by definition AIM-174B is the more precise page. Point 5 is literally the opposite of what WP:CRYSTAL means given that the entire argument MWFwiki is making is based on the anticipation of other missiles in the family beyond the AIM-174B existing in the future -- if no such missiles ever come into existence, then by definition AIM-174B will have been correct; and Point 6: "nobody has edited the name yet" is not a persuasive argument when this is an article that has only been out of draft space for less than 2 months having been split off from the RIM-174 article. Prematurely, I might add, something I cautioned about in the first place and you ignored my advice back then too, MWFWiki. I didn't call out the WP:OWN issue then, but you're certainly stepping closer to that territory now when you're making arguments like "If you disagree with my interpretation, that is your issue to deal with" and "I don't really care how you feel about my interpretations." This is a collaborative discussion. If you wish to participate in it, you are required to consider other interpretations than your own. If you don't want to participate collaboratively, if you don't want to hear any opinion's other than your own, this is probably not the place for you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my objection; I don't care about an opposing argument when that argument is simply "I disagree" or "I don't find that compelling" or "no." Nor am I preventing or otherwise stifling other debate. Indeed, I am encouraging discussion. Thank you for your response. MWFwiki (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your counterpoints:

1. So we should go with the more concise option presented by sources. There is nothing imprecise about "AIM-174," it would not cause any confusion or cause any issues in locating the article. That being said, I fully understand the argument in-regards to conciseness when it is only 1 character. That being said, I'd like to pre-empt any argument that the sources exclusively support "AIM-174B." (It's not even preempting, someone already argued this above)

2. "AIM-174B" is still a variant. "AIM-174" is indeed more concise. AIM-174 is in no way incorrect.

3. All US AAMs are quite consistent. AIM-4 Falcon, AIM-26 Falcon, AIM-47 Falcon, AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-54 Phoenix, AIM-68 Big Q, AIM-82, AIM-95 Agile, AIM-97 Seekbat, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132, AIM-152 AAAM, AIM-260… all AIM-prefixed AAMs I found are consistent

4. The AIM-174B is an AIM-174. That is how the U.S. missile naming system works. All AIM-9Xs are AIM-9s. All AIM-7Cs are AIM-7s. All AIM-54Bs are AIM-54s.

5. That is hardly my entire argument. However, I again reiterate that we are NOT assuming anything with "AIM-174." We are with the "B."

6. I do find it persuasive, nothing has stopped anyone from changing the lead or the body in two months. You cautioned me about creating an article, I did so, it passed review. This has nothing to do with this discussion. If you feel that this article should not exist, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion, otherwise that has nothing to do with this discussion. I actually quite appreciated your original input -- and perhaps I should have shown it better -- even if I ultimately disagreed with it.

I apologize for making two seperate replies, I just wanted to keep the discussion regarding conduct and the pertinent discussion separate. Also, I do apologize if I have come off as hostile, I tend to speak matter-of-factly, particularly via text, and it can come-off as hostile.

MWFwiki (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asukite and RodRabelo7: Can someone please close this discuss? It was relisted 15 days ago, and the last comment was 13 days ago, with no new progress made. This needs to be closed one way or another, and appeals can be made if necessary. In hindsight, I believe the second relisting was a mistake, as it was done at the behest of one user, and thus has postponed a review for over 2 weeks. If they object again, please advice them to use deletion review instead. If I disagree with the result of the close, I may initiate a review myself. However, I won't be asking for a relisting instead of a close. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat I believe per the RM closing instructions, as I have "technically" closed this already, it may be improper to do it again. I apologize for the delay - I wasn't aware this was still open! I will go ahead and list it over at WP:CR to try to get a speedy close if possible. ASUKITE 20:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]