This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This would appear to be a 'subcitical test' as described in the last line of the article. Maybe there should be a separate list describing and listing the subcritical tests.
KTrimble (
talk)
04:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Done, linked to. Subcrit test list in "Nuclear weapons testing".
It was a subcritical test known as Pollux, in which a 1/4 model of a MIRV warhead was exploded. The 1/4 amount of plutonium in the core was insufficient to reach criticality when shot, but the deformation of the core increased knowledge about the metallurgy of plutonium (which is very complicated with multiple solid phases), and made the "codes" that simulate explosions on supercomputers more accurate. There is considerable argument about whether subcriticality is actually allowed by the wording of the CTBT, but inasmuch as similar tests were done in the hiatus of the 1960 test ban, inclusion of specific wording may indicate that it would have been a deal breaker. At any rate, Russia does it, China does it, "you do it, we all do it, I just did it, and I want to do it again."
Project Shoal, apparently not part of any of the other operations from 1963. It was detonated near
Fallon, Nevada, and was not on the Nevada Test Site.
Project Faultless, which appears to be the only test of its operation. This was detonated in the Hot Creek area east of
Tonopah, Nevada - also not on the Nevada Test Site.
Shoal was a Project Vela/Uniform event in the Niblick series. Faultless was a test of the possibility of underground testing of megaton-class weapons on US territory (the geology of the NTS is not stable enough for that), specifically for the Spartan program. Central Nevada proved, unfortunately, not to be faultless, so the next such test was Milrow, 1MT on Amchitka Island in the Aleutians, which was successful enough to allow for Cannikan, 5MT, also on Amchitka.
SkoreKeep (
talk)
01:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)reply
support: I've got to go with this one; there's about a 95% overlap of content. The important question, as far as I'm concerned, is how to do it. Be aware, if I didn't mention it before, that the table in
United States' nuclear test series is generated from a database by a script. I can do a lot of things with the script; I could, for instance, insert the thumbnail images into the table, although I don't think, personally, they help anything. I would, for sure, review the Notes column and incorporate anything which is significant into what Notes the US's tests table has. It would not be very useful to make changes to the tables as they are in the articles, as the next sweep I make of all the pages would revert the table back to its current format, plus whatever changes I make to the script.
SkoreKeep (
talk)
02:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)reply
I am less concerned with the format of the table than with the number of separate pages on this subject, which should only be one. I would, however, recommend that no sourced information be lost and that the tables be kept within the width of a standard web browser page; at present, the table on
United States' nuclear test series is too wide, and also contains a code error that is generating an extra space between the last two rows.
Neelix (
talk)
18:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)reply
I'll look in to it.
It now fits easily within 1024 screen pixels across; I'm not sure what you mean by a "standard web browser page". That "error" is merely a way of producing a double line before the totals line.
SkoreKeep (
talk)
23:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)reply
I would recommend shading the totals line a different colour rather than going around the code; it looks messy with the coding as it is. Your most recent edits have narrowed the table sufficiently. Thank you for agreeing to look into how to merge these articles.
Neelix (
talk)
16:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)reply
OK, I'll do that, though I wonder what messy means in this context; formatting wikitables is about as messy as I've ever encountered. But I'll do as you suggest; as I said before, making my information available to the maximum extent is my goal. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SkoreKeep (
talk •
contribs)
Done. Other page redirected here. Will continue with other nation pages in the next week. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SkoreKeep (
talk •
contribs)
Thank you for performing the merger and for offering to perform similar mergers/moves for the relevant articles relating to other countries. I noticed some important components of the article were removed in the merger, so I readded them.
Neelix (
talk)
15:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The table on this page is generated by database
The table on this page and the contents of any nuclear tests infobox are generated from a database of nuclear testing which I have maintained and researched for a number of years. The table is automatically generated from that database by a Visual Basic script, and then has, periodically, been inserted into the page manually. I began doing this in October of 2013.
Recently a user complained (politely) to me about the practice. It seems to him that it removes control from all editors besides myself over the content. He believes it is tantamount to WP:OWNED of the pages affected. He also points out that there is no public mention of the fact anywhere on wikipedia, and that is true, through my own oversight, until now.
There was no intent that the pages affected should be owned by myself; in fact, one of my reasons for building these pages was to solicit (in the wikipedia way) criticism and corrections to the data, perhaps additional references that I had been unable to locate. I have regenerated the tables twice in the days since they were originally placed. Each time I did so, I performed a diff between the current version and the version that I put up in the previous cycle; all corrections were then either entered into the database or corrected in the programming, as appropriate. As may be guessed, the programming corrections were frequent to start out as suggestions about the table formatting were raised, and most incorporated. I have not made judgements on the "usefulness" of corrections; all have been incorporated, or I have communicated directly with the editor to settle the matter. In fact it was in pursuing such a correction that this matter came up.
I am posting this comment on the Talk page of every page containing content which is so generated. If you would like to comment on this matter, please go to the copy on
Talk:List of nuclear tests so the discussion can be kept together. I will also be placing a maintained template on each Talk page (if anyone would like also to be named as a maintainer on one or all pages, you are welcome). I solicit all comments and suggestions.
I have just modified 2 external links on
List of nuclear weapons tests of the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
I have removed the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as well as the codenamed
Project Alberta) from the list because characterizing them as "tests" is inaccurate. These explosions were weapons delivered in anger onto enemy territory. While limited data was collected to assess the weapons' performance, I think that characterizing them as "tests" is simply incorrect. Also, Trinity is lumped together with these explosions under Project Alberta-- this is also incorrect, as Alberta seems to have been concerned with weapons delivery, not testing. Accordingly, I have adjusted the "series" header to
Trinity and revised the figures across the row to reflect that test alone.
A2soup (
talk)
04:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)reply
The lists are incomplete without those two uses in the list. Returned them to the list, annotating that they were war shots, which they were; not primarily tests, though data was collected, which cannot be denied. While I agree with A2soup that they were not tests, they were part of the series. Left Operation Alberta out of it.
SkoreKeep (
talk)
23:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
It sums to 99kt. the releases are all essentially independent of each other though they were done at the same instant. The desire was to fracture a "chimney" into which multiple layers of rock could unload the gas. They did that but it was all too radioactive to sell.
SkoreKeep (
talk)
22:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)reply