Talk:Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

message: Thanks for reverting the changes "| condition_effective = Ratification by the Soviet Union," to "... Russia" and "| depositor =Governments of ... the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" to "... Russian Federation".  
Might it be appropriate to split the difference, e.g.:  
* "| condition_effective = Ratification by the Soviet Union," > "| condition_effective = Ratification by the Soviet Union (now Russia)," or "... USSR (now Russia)," or 
and 
* "| depositor =Governments of ... the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" to "...  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (now Russian Federation)" or  "...  USSR (now Russian Federation)"?
This would make the text more accessible, I think, to people aren't old enough to remember when it was the Soviet Union.  Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I do like your idea. When making the decision to approve or revoke the change I researched for a few minutes over at treaties.un.org to verify the nomenclature. I determined that the current form is accurate. I would agree with the the change you suggested along with utilizing the parties field in the Template:Infobox treaty template. This should increase the topic clarity. DavidDelaune (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm confused:  Since you have not already made that change, it suggest to me that while you like my idea, you aren't sure it's appropriate.  Unless you have a substantive reservation, I suggest this is a place for us to "Wikipedia:Be bold" and make the change.  If someone else doesn't like it, they can revert it ;-)  I may make the change later myself if I feel moved to do so and haven't heard from you in the interim.  Thanks for your contributions to helping improve the education of the mass of humanity, which is what all the contributors to Wikimedia Foundation projects do except for seriously biased editors.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 09:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing this discussion after making a similar "split the difference" edit.  The Soviet Union needed to ratify, but Russia is now the successor and depositary.  But it's not accurate to say USSR (now Russia).  Russia is the treaty successor to the Soviet Union, but not identical.  It's not just a name change. NPguy (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful.  This is effective, constructive anarchy ;-)  DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  USSR (now Russia)? 

message: The new map is OK, but makes a distinction that is not very important and potentially confusing, namely the distinction between states that ratified and those that acceded.  It may be of slight historical interest, but there is no practical current difference.  I recommend dropping this distinction, merging the light and dark blue, and merging the dark and light green. NPguy (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New map 

message: On 2022-06-30T02:17:33 User:GreenC bot replaced 
* URL https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/ridding-research-reactors-highly-enriched-uranium-take-decades-longer-projected 
* with https://www.science.org/content/article/ridding-research-reactors-highly-enriched-uranium-take-decades-longer-projected 
in .  
SADLY, neither of those URLs discuss highly enriched uranium (HUE).  
Fortunately, I was able to find a copy of the article on the Internet Archive:  .  I've migrated the reference to Wikidata, where it's actually more complete (e.g., which "Adrian Cho"?) and more easily maintained.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The URL suggests an article about HEU, but the underlying article is about something completely different.  It's so obviously wrong, it's probably a one-off error during the recent migration Science did from sciencemag.org to science.org. I will report it to them as I am currently volunteering to help them with this migration. Thanks for the notification. Hopefully this does not indicate a bigger problem with their redirects. -- GreenC 04:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your attention to this.  It does look like it could be symptomatic of larger problems.  I'm glad you read my report ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like in 2016 two different papers were assigned the same DOI number 10.1126/science.aae0287 which confused the new science.org site. I've never heard of duplicate DOIs before but here is a case. Still researching. -- GreenC 15:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @DavidMCEddy@GreenC Thank you for your patience while the team at science.org researched and resolved the DOI and URL conflict described here. The intended article has been restored with DOI 10.1126/science.aae0287 referencing the URL  https://www.science.org/content/article/ridding-research-reactors-highly-enriched-uranium-take-decades-longer-projected. Meanwhile, the conflicting article has been issued a new DOI 10.1126/ade5025 and restored at the URL https://www.science.org/content/article/germanys-excellence-program-gets-good-grades. SibeliusHicks (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate link re. "Ridding research reactors of highly enriched uranium to take decades longer than projected" 

message: A section on Ukraine has been added.  The section is problematic because it relies entirely on one article, which is mostly an opinion article, though couched as an academic paper.  This paper is not representative of scholarship on the subject (Mariana Budjeryn an d Steve Pifer would be more reliable and balanced sources) and makes highly questionable assertions, most notably that Ukraine possessed the nuclear weapons that were deployed on its territory in 1994. NPguy (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine