Talk:Operation Plumbbob

message: This is a quote of a caption of the photo of the Hood shot, as of june 21 2009: "and the flash was seen by an airline pilot flying over Hawaii, over 800 miles from the NTS." The caption says California's 300 miles away, true enough, but I had no idea those folks three time zones further than California were only 800 miles out to sea. 8000? Doubt that too. More like around 4000.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.51.236 (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i just noticed that too. A couple of sources put the distance between Honolulu and LasVegas as about 2700 miles. I'm going to go ahead and make that change.   Will Beback  talk   21:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continental Drift Reversed? 

message: Why does thunderwell redirect here this has nothing to do with thunderwells 71.192.108.214 (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Article says: "The use of a subterranean shaft and nuclear device to propel an object to escape velocity has since been termed a "thunder well". I guess there is no better article on the subject yet. --BjKa (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  thunderwell 

message: The article currently says: "The operation was the sixth test series". Now, in my reckoning it would have come after Trinity, Crossroads, Sandstone, Ranger, Greenhouse, Buster-Jangle, Tumbler-Snapper, Ivy, Upshot-Knothole, Castle, Teapot, Wigwam, and a few others. How do you arrive at six for this test series? --BjKa (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sixth test series? 

message: The table was saying 0.5 kilotons.  Reality, in every source other than Wikipedia says 0.5 tons.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html
http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/level2/nuke.cat.html
Maybe there was some confusion concerning the design yield of 600 tons?  Lassen was a fizzle.
97.127.184.156 (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: More likely it was some well-meaning person "correcting" the omission of the "kilo-" prefix.  We had that a lot on Operation Buster-Jangle with people changing the yield of Able to tons or kilotons, until I changed it to a direct quote with a cited source to keep it at <1 pound nuclear yield... rdfox 76 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lassen 

message: Seriously, Priscilla??
Hood was the largest atmospheric test in the CONUS.  Hood should be the picture for the article.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/PbHood1.jpg  <-- Here's one, you can always find another though.
97.127.184.156 (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture for series.  Why not Hood? 

message: Coinmanj added a new section: 
See also
    Totskoye nuclear exercise, a similar test by the Soviet Union
just below the list of tests in Plumbbob.  The question for me is, which test was Totskoye similar to?  The Totskoye test is infamous for Beria ordering a bomb drop in a relatively populated farm area as part of an Army maneuver without warning; it was not otherwise technically different from tens of other drop tests. I really don't see the connection with any Plumbbob test, unless this is a pretty involved attempt at vandalizing the article by drawing a parallel with one of the Desert Rock tests (Hood or Smokey, perhaps).  I'll revert the change in a week or so if no answers are forthcoming; at a minimum, the comment needs to be extended to point out the similarity. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that johnfos put the section and the mention of Totskoye back in, with no reason given.  Well, there it lies. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totskoye? 

message: The opening paragraph describes this as being, among other things, the most controversial test series. It would be nice to have a section discussing the controversies, and whether they were controversies at the time, or only became controversial later on, when more information about the tests specifically as well as generally became known.Wschart (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: 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) 02:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The table on this page is generated by database

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Plumbbob. 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/20061012160826/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
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029194805/http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/nuc_02019401a_121.pdf to http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/nuc_02019401a_121.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The CMR Nuclear explosion database lists the Yield of Pascal-B as 0.
The DOE/NV-209 lists it as slight in the Dec 2000 version but as 1 gram in the Sept 2015 version.
The DNA Plumbbob Series Document lists it as 0.3kt.
What is going on here?  Abnormalandroid (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yield of Pascal-B? 

message: Just imagine the Manhole Cover flying into some alien planet with life. The aliens are wondering "what is that thing that might hit our planet" and its just a steel plate that wipes out the alien civilization.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.86.125.130 (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hahafunny