Talk:British nuclear testing in the United States

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.

SkoreKeep (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British nuclear testing in 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615231826/http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf to http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British nuclear testing in 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107163417/http://rdss.info/ to http://www.rdss.info/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:British nuclear testing in the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 15:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• No DABs, external links mostly OK
• This link didn't work for me: Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for Cooperation on the uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes

  Y JBOSS error. Likely a temporary problem, but substituted the US copy of the treaty. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Images properly licensed.
• Link megaton, kiloton, subcritical, primary and secondary fusion on first use

   Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Once you've mentioned a year, you needn't mention it again until the next year. 15 May 1963, Clean Slate 1 on 25 May 1963, Clean Slate 2 on 31 May 1963 and Clean Slate 3 on 9 June 1963, forex

  Y Removed repeated years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• new warhead was designed "had to be" designed?

   Done Slight re-wording required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Isolationism vs non-interventionism

First of all, note WP:NOTBROKEN: Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page.

My sources all speak of US isolationism. I am unaware of there being such a thing as US non-interventionism; it sounds like rubbish. Google ngrams indicates that "isolationism" is common and "non-interventioism" is rare. Apparently, the argument is that "this distinguishes isolationism from non-interventionism, which also advocates military neutrality but does not necessarily oppose international commitments and treaties in general." This being the case, isolationism is what we want, and I have re-linked to the "isolationism" article.

However, this spoils the reason for the redirect, which is that someone might want to expand it into an article in its own right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, I am fine with your change to just isolationism if that is in fact what the context of the article in this instance calls for (i.e. "what we want"). I would add though, just like the word "rubbish" is never used in the United states, there are terms that may in fact be used more or less regionally. I myself was not aware that this might have been the case with isolationism vs. non-interventionism, but in the United States, non-interventionism is distinct from isolationism and very much a valid term (i.e. not "rubbish"). Thank you for reading my comments. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 19:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing your contention that the two are distinct. I just find it troubling that there is a redirect pointing to something distinct. That should not happen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)