![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have not learned yet how to classify an article.
This is an article about a family of US thermonuclear weapons. I chose to do it because it was something that you guys said needed to be done.
I would guess this should be classified as something like Nuclear Weapons, US Nuclear Weapons, or Humongus Bombs.
How about a hand here?
Would you like me to do more bomb histories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Lincoln ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 July 2007
I'm not sure how it happened, but we appear to have two nearly identical articles:
All I know is that one should be a redirect to the other, and since this one has an active discussion page and the other one does not, I suggest that we keep this one and redirect the other one here ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.74.236 11:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The preceding was copied from Talk:Mark-17 hydrogen bomb. — 72.75.74.236 01:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If no hyphen is the standard nomenclature, someone should probably edit this article accordingly. Right now it has a mix of hyphenated and non-hyphenated labels. Jmdeur ( talk) 13:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
If the plutionium pit was stored somewhere else on the plane and only coreless bomb fell to the ground, where did the contamination come from? These details on the origin of the radioactive contaminations needs to be added. -- Gunnar ( talk) 17:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
This article currently says the Mk 17 differed from the Mk 24 in its primary, whereas Mark 24 nuclear bomb says they differed in their secondaries. The latter says the difference was in the Lithium-6 enrichment. I think the latter is probably correct, as it would be a simple change to substitute a higher enrichment level in the lithium material without affecting other aspects of the design. Since the lithium is used in the secondary (thermonuclear) component, but not in the primary, this indicates the two used different secondaries. I couldn't find authoritative material online so haven't updated the article. -- R. S. Shaw ( talk) 07:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Though the Mk17 and Mk24 bombs are very similar, they are distinct weapons and the Mk24 already has its own article. I propose phrasing which mentions the Mk24 as part of the same subject be removed. The mention of their similarity is relevant, that should be left in, but insofar as the subject of the article is concerned, it should be focused on the Mk17. Okto8 ( talk) 23:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have not learned yet how to classify an article.
This is an article about a family of US thermonuclear weapons. I chose to do it because it was something that you guys said needed to be done.
I would guess this should be classified as something like Nuclear Weapons, US Nuclear Weapons, or Humongus Bombs.
How about a hand here?
Would you like me to do more bomb histories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Lincoln ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 July 2007
I'm not sure how it happened, but we appear to have two nearly identical articles:
All I know is that one should be a redirect to the other, and since this one has an active discussion page and the other one does not, I suggest that we keep this one and redirect the other one here ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.74.236 11:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The preceding was copied from Talk:Mark-17 hydrogen bomb. — 72.75.74.236 01:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If no hyphen is the standard nomenclature, someone should probably edit this article accordingly. Right now it has a mix of hyphenated and non-hyphenated labels. Jmdeur ( talk) 13:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
If the plutionium pit was stored somewhere else on the plane and only coreless bomb fell to the ground, where did the contamination come from? These details on the origin of the radioactive contaminations needs to be added. -- Gunnar ( talk) 17:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
This article currently says the Mk 17 differed from the Mk 24 in its primary, whereas Mark 24 nuclear bomb says they differed in their secondaries. The latter says the difference was in the Lithium-6 enrichment. I think the latter is probably correct, as it would be a simple change to substitute a higher enrichment level in the lithium material without affecting other aspects of the design. Since the lithium is used in the secondary (thermonuclear) component, but not in the primary, this indicates the two used different secondaries. I couldn't find authoritative material online so haven't updated the article. -- R. S. Shaw ( talk) 07:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Though the Mk17 and Mk24 bombs are very similar, they are distinct weapons and the Mk24 already has its own article. I propose phrasing which mentions the Mk24 as part of the same subject be removed. The mention of their similarity is relevant, that should be left in, but insofar as the subject of the article is concerned, it should be focused on the Mk17. Okto8 ( talk) 23:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)