@Ziggy1989
As I am sure you are already aware of, the nomenclature/heriatage/design philosiphy of aircraft produced by dassault is seen here as suscinctly different to the design, development, integration and role from aircraft to aircraft.
Most users here are particularly interested in the design intricacies and finer details of development and purpose, most of your topics and posts have been about the philosophical nature of why the aircraft are named Mirage.
What aircraft are named is frankly, ulrelated in regard to how the aircraft is designed and used, and this goes the same for many military vehicles that re-use names serval times over… the Mirage 2000 could have been named the Spicy French Dorito and it wouldn’t have made any difference to the design philosophy and development of the aircraft.
As for your oppinions/arguments, most people don’t disagree with what you are saying but rather, how you are saying it.
For example, when you say an aircraft is “based on” X, most people here imagine an example like the F15E strike Eagle, and would say it is based on the F15A/C Eagle. The aircraft being essentially the same, but the role, configuration and implementation are sufficiently different to result in a different designation of aircraft where the airframe and internals are significantly modified to result in a “new” aircraft.
An aircraft that is “based on” another aircraft would share signficiant design elements that are relatively unchanged.
Therfore, The Mirage 50 is based on the Mirage 5, which in turn is based on the Mirage III. They are again essentially roughly the same airframe and have lots of common parts and shared features, but are viewed as different aircraft with different roles and uses due to signficant modifications and design changes.
The Mirage IIIE is seen as a variant of the Mirage IIIC and so on because the changes are primarily upgrades and the overall design and role is the same.
The Mirage IV, Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000 bear no common resemblance in design, features or capabilities to each other or the older Mirage III airframe, and as such are viewed as entirely separate designs of aircraft with little to no shared elements at all.
You are technically correct that they share the same design philosophy, which is what you have been arguing for. But to say their design is related is akin to saying you are related to a distant cousin in the same way you are related to a sibling. Yes there is some relation/resemblance, but how closely related you are is of signficant importance to some people.
That is a very fast way to piss off a lot of people who are going to be very pedantic about specific designs and how much of the specific design of aircraft is shared from one to another. (Lots of forum warriors here who are very strongly oppinionated)