This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
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
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: movedtoTrident (UK nuclear programme). This article has been under several names, the first in 2007 was British Trident system. It seems there are so many possible ways to title this article. There is a fair consensus that we should rename this page, and there is a rough consensus to change the title to Trident (UK nuclear programme); however, that consensus is rough enough so that there is no prejudice toward editors continuing to discover the highest and best title for this article. In other words as per RM closing instructions, any editor may open a new Requested move debate at any time. ♥Happy ♥Hearts ♥Day! (closed by page mover) Paine Ellsworthput'r there02:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BilCat: see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. The previous title was both more concise and more precise. Why exactly do you object to greater concision and greater precision? Also, the distinction between "programme" and "program" does not identify the scope. A broad article on both the US+UK systems could reasonably be titled "Trident nuclear programme" or "Trident nuclear program", with the choice made WP:ENGVAR on the basis of what the first editor chose. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose US has Trident nuclear submarines and Trident missiles, but those elements combined are not referred to by US government, books, and media as the Trident nuclear program / deterrent like they are in the UK. Firebrace (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only acceptable title would be "Trident (UK nuclear deterrent)", because in the UK it is commonly known as "Trident", and this title follows the convention for disambiguating articles ("UK" never comes first unless it is part of a proper noun). I am in favour of "deterrent" per the exception at WP:NPOVNAME as "nuclear programme" could refer to a civilian nuclear power programme, so "deterrent" is the right word to use if, as you say, we are aiming for precision. "Nuclear deterrent" is also more common in English reliable sources. Firebrace (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you should know, WP:NATURALDIS allows use of an "alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title". "UK Trident programme" is commonly used in English reliable sources: see Gbooks.
There is also no need to use the POV term "deterrent", because "UK Trident programme" is widely used and not ambiguous with any UK civilian nuclear programme. (note Gbooks gives massively more hits for "UK Trident programme" than "UK Trident deterrent").
I obviously don't know what your motivation is, but it seems very odd that you are advancing a succession of counter-factual and/or anti-policy reasons for opposing reversal of your undiscussed move on the basis of a bizarre claim that no other country has a Trident nuclear deterrent. Tell that to the personnel of Kings Bay and the crew of the Ohio-class submarines.
Oh dear, @Firebrace. Yet more counter-factuals, with added personal abuse just to emphasise your lack of substantive argument. I propose that the article revert to the title "UK Trident programme". Do I need to explain to you why that does not require a reader to know in advance is a weapon system? And that adding the un-needed word weapon does require them to know that? That is why WP:PRECISION says "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". You propose un-needed precision, contrary to policy.
And as any 12yo reading this discussion could explain to you from evidence posted above, "UK Trident programme" is not a case of en.wp choosing to disambiguate by sticking names of countries at the front of titles. It is a commonly used term in reliable sources (see Gbooks), and as such is a form of WP:NATURALDIS.
It is hard to believe your interpretation of WP:NATURALDIS when parenthetical disambiguation has always been the preferred option. As for my "whole load of irrelevant examples", there are plenty of verbatim Google results for "UK Holocaust Memorial Day", "UK Labour Party" and "UK Freeview". By your logic, these are natural forms of disambiguation that we should be using on Wikipedia, but since evidently we are not, I can only assume that your reading of Wikipedia title policy is wrong. As you clearly have no interest in compromise I am left with no choice but to continue opposing your proposal for "UK Trident programme". Firebrace (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as an American who reads the world news, I feel "Trident" as a weapons program unambiguously refers to the UK nuclear deterrent. The article lead makes clear this refers to the UK program; it is the American system that should be disambiguated when referenced. (of course, some disambiguation is necessary to distinguish this from the weapon, the gum, etc.) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, the US has lots of nuclear programs, very few of which are of general interest. The UK has Trident, and nothing else. I consider Trident to refer metonymically to the UK nuclear deterrent. I agree that the fact that the US also operates the Trident (missile) does introduce some confusion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first few sentences of UGM-133 Trident II#History clearly speak of the US-only phase as a "Trident program". Bolding added by me: The Trident II was designated to be the latest longer-range missile, performing greater than its predecessor (Trident C-4) in terms of range and payload capacity. In 1972, the US Navy projected an initial operating capability (IOC) date for the Trident II in 1984. The US Navy continued to advance the IOC date to 1982. On 18 October 1973, a Trident program review was administered. On 14 March 1974, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense disseminated two requirements for the Trident program. Simplest way to avoid the confusion which we agree exists: revert to the previous concise and unambiguous title: "UK Trident programme" --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Trident (UK nuclear programme) per bd2412. Other countries have used Trident. The UK one is the most prominent, but the question is if there is sufficient ambiguity to need disambiguation. I think BrownHairedGirl has demonstrated that there is. The question becomes if a natural or parenthetical disambiguator is preferred. Looking at the options, I think the least clunky in this case would be a parenthetical. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Actually, only the US and UK use Trident. This came about when I tried to harmonise the name of UK Polaris Programme with this article. The proposed moves will leave us where we started. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: The choice of "Programme" or "Program" usually reflects the language preferences of the writer and/or intended audience rather than the topic. That's why Gbooks has plenty of hits for "uk trident program".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I'm sure of it. The article already says: Some non-nuclear components for the British nuclear warhead are procured from the US for reasons of cost effectiveness.Hawkeye7(discuss)10:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SSBN isn't really explained, it is just added to ballistic missile submarine (at second mention), but why we use that initialisation isn't clear, also I think the fact that the boats are nuclear-powered is not mentioned specifically
Each type of warship has a code, sometime with suffixes. Submarines are SS; the suffix for ballistic missiles is B, and for nuclear powered is N. So ballistic nuclear submarines are SSBN. This derives from the US Navy, but is widely and sporadically used by others as well. Hawkeye7(discuss)11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The UK cabinet forms ad hoc committees. Each ad hoc committee is given a unique prefix, either MISC (miscellaneous) or GEN (general) and a number. The Committee on Subversive Activities, for example, was known as GEN 183. I tried to link to United Kingdom cabinet committee, but it doesn't explain this. Hawkeye7(discuss)11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the history of British nuclear weapons, all the key decisions have been taken by Cabinet subcommittees. Debate by the full cabinet has been rare, and debates in the House of Commons are rarer still. Hawkeye7(discuss)01:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"pressed for an undertaking that the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible" do what? Be retained in service?
"The warheads are not aimed at specific targets but await coordinates that can be programmed into their computers and fired with several days' notice" seems incongruous. How is this a deterrent, and how does the captain decide what targets to hit if he is at sea and has no communication with higher HQ? And several days' notice seems a strange timeframe?
The article notes that the captains have sealed instructions for this eventuality. The deterrent effect comes from it being a second strike weapon. Hawkeye7(discuss)11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The British government contributed five per cent of its development costs" same observation re: R&D
the senior RAF officers making comment on the (Navy-only) SDR gives rise to questions about RAF (which used to part of the deterrent) jostling for position/influence. Is there anything that can be added here?
The out-turn cost of a project is its actual construction cost. Generally this refers to the actual, total construction cost calculated at the end of the project, but it may also refer to the cost of a specific contract, or to costs incurred over a defined period. Hawkeye7(discuss)11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Initial Gate" and 'Main Gate' are introduced without explanation
The business case presented at Initial Gate includes the programme plan and costing for the procurement. The Main Gate business case is a key deliverable, along with the SRD, from the Assessment Stage. The process and products are similar to those used at Initial Gate but with a higher degree of maturity expected at this stage. Specifically, the SRD, ITEAP and refined TLMP feed into this business case, along with the system design synthesis, to inform the decision on whether to proceed. Hawkeye7(discuss)11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The citation given says the opposite of the claim that most of the costs were incurred in the US while the other citation does not cite the claim instead making some dubious logic to claim much of the nuclear material is US in origin. NAO report says warheads cost was 269m pounds in US and 625m pounds in UK so easily falsifiable. If you want you could include other non-warhead costs, but this is the warhead section, so we should stick to warhead cost.
The other source doesn't demonstrate SNM was purchased from the US, it just says some was purchased from British Nuclear Fuels and then goes therefore the rest must come from the US which is nonsense logic. BNF make enriched uranium and are likely the origin of secondary components while the UK already had Pu239 for the primary stage. The UK has a stockpile of several tonnes and needs less than 5kg per weapon, they did not need to purchase it from anyone.
Also I see someone made a mess of the warhead section after I cleaned it up. Thank you to the people who fixed it up afterwards! Kylesenior (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Y I've expanded the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
