Talk:Nuclear weapon design

1348:

with full-size numbers, like "U-235") it will need to be printed using a larger size font for the miniature numbers of the nuclide symbols to be easily readable. Now the rest of the prose is too big. Ink and paper is wasted, and the reading speed and comprehension is presumably affected to. More page turns, or more scrolling downs if on a screen are needed, for the entire article. And this goes for an article that one merely thinks *might* have nuclide symbols used in the prose instead of normal abbreviations, or full names of nuclides. This is because one needs to either print it larger just in case, or check the whole article before printing, or invest in a magnifying glass. Thus the abuse of nuclide symbols in one article can even cause inconvenience and expense (and environmental harm) for readers of other articles that merely look like they might contain misused nuclide symbols.

1281:

usages verbose, frankly. "Uranium-235" is clearer than "U-235" or "U". But I think "uranium-235" followed by either "U-235" or "U" is also pretty clear. However I think that including both "U-235" and "U" in the same article is confusing to people who might not recognize that these are meant to refer to exactly the same thing. And in any event, it looks careless. As it is, it is pretty idiosyncratic. Some paragraphs re-use "uranium-235" multiple times (which is fine by me) but then have a random abbreviation thrown in here or there, of either style. My sense is that eliminating all abbreviations except inside actual reaction formulae would not do any real damage to the text (it wouldn't get any more repetitive than it is now).

431: 1321:" and deleting the template and then typing in the IUPAC name. I just realized I could have used "find and replace" with the whole template as the find part and the IUPAC name as the replace part. I think that would work. But I guess I'd need to then change back all the wrongly changed ones, that is to say, the ones being mentioned in the prose or used in equations. The ones mentioned in prose are at least almost always in parentheses, which I guess could be used to change them back automatically. That leaves the equations. And the ones I saw in the article don't use the sup: --> 97: 1206:"two three five you", "you two three five", "uranium two three five", "two three five uranium", "uranium two hundred and thirty-five", "two hundred and thirty-five uranium", or something else? This imposes a mostly useless cognitive load on the reader, and slows him down, and causes boredom and disgust --probably to an unreasonable degree, but, like I said, we should be compassionate. I can't believe even the Simple English Knowledge used the nuclide symbol unnecessarily. 916:"Metastable isomers of a particular isotope are usually designated with an "m" (or, in the case of isotopes with more than one isomer, m2, m3, and so on). This designation is usually placed after the atomic symbol and number of the atom (e.g., Co-58m), but is sometimes placed as a superscript before (e.g., 58mCo). Increasing indices, m, m2, etc. correlate with increasing levels of excitation energy stored in each of the isomeric states (e.g., Hf-177m2 or 177m2Hf)" 1625:

criticality is triggered, not about what models of United States' bombs use those methods. The list is unsourced and not helpful. There is already a sentience in the preceding paragraph about how linear implosion is used in artillery shells (if that is the case, I don't know, hard to tell from scant sources). None of the linked articles in that list mention linear implosion, and those don't have many sources either. How do people feel about me deleting that list?

1605:"The uranium-235 nucleus can split in many ways, provided the charge numbers add up to 92 and the mass numbers add up to 236 (uranium-235 plus the neutron that caused the split). The following equation shows one possible split, namely into". Since it says "the charge numbers add up to 92", I thought it might be an idea to replace the nuclide symbols that show only the mass numbers with some that show both mass number and charge number. Any thoughts on that? 339: 523: 505: 596: 421: 400: 371: 323: 355: 21: 672: 533: 208: 88: 1021:

than "the POTUS". The latter is easier to type, that is all. Newspapers, maybe even books, all need to conserve space. Maybe radio and television need to conserve air time. Knowledge has no such need. Reader comprehension, reading time, and pleasure is what counts. Writing time, and writing pleasure should count for nothing in the decision of when to use an abbreviation.

280: 269: 258: 247: 166: 130: 1187:

decode it when reading, because it is not a normal abbreviation. In English, the "two three five" comes after the "uranium", but the nuclide symbol has it come first. I really like it, but it doesn't belong in prose, IMHO. I have stated several disadvantages of doing so. Can you state any advantages of using "235U" in prose?

236: 1205:

If space is somewhat limited, "U-235" is far more widely understood than 235U, because it is obvious that it means "uranium-235". It is much easier for everyone, including experts, to read, because the order has not been changed. "235U" is confusing, and even *I* don't know how to pronounce it. Is it

1043:

I looked at the link. It says, "Isotopes are named and identified as - with regular lowercase and hyphen (carbon-13), or by equivalent symbol format 13C" The nuclide symbol format is put it second place. Not just here, but consistently, *systematically*, throughout the section. It suggests that it is

1020:

Knowledge uses, IMHO, way too many abbreviations. The reader should be told what the correct abbreviation is, but shouldn't be forced to become familiar with it. The fact that it makes writing easier should not count for anything. "The President of the United States" can be read as quickly or quicker

972:

Encyclopedia.com is to my taste. It doesn't mention a single nuclide symbol in its article. It has only "uranium-235", "the 235 isotope", "the uranium-235 isotope", and "U-235". All are have obvious pronunciations that come to mind instantly. And they are all familiar to every reader. IMHO, Knowledge

1374:

And this might be useful, if it is in brackets after the word, "lysine", so that you still know which amino acid is being referred to without looking at the diagram, in other words, when the diagram is in effect being merely *mentioned* and not used in place of the normal full name or normal (easily

1370:

Such diagrams are great for seeing how amino acids combine to form a peptide, and how the bulkiness (except in the case of glycine, which has a very small side chain) of the side chains causes them to twist around and stick out on opposite sides of the peptide in an alternating pattern, for example.

1366:

One could, in principle, have a template that allows you to squeeze a miniaturized matrix, table, or diagram into prose in Knowledge. Maybe they exist already --besides the nuclide symbol templates, I mean. Then, instead of writing "water", you could use a template to add a miniature line diagram of

1280:

There isn't one "right way" to do any of this. It is just about conventions and legibility. It seems like the Manual of Style allows for multiple possibilities. It's really a matter of choice and style. For me, what is most important aspect is consistency and clarity. I am not opposed to making all

968:

To digress perhaps, but just for a moment, "triuranium octoxide" is appropriate for normal prose. Not every reader will like, or understand "U3O8" (the 3 and the 8 would be subscripts). In fact, readers are mostly repelled by even simple formulas. Unimpressive on their part, of course, but we should

1378:

So, a line needs to be drawn regarding use of templates to add what are essentially images (emojis are images, of course) to text. I would suggest that that line should be at nuclide symbols because of the miniaturization of the numbers. This is a separate issue from the rearrangement aspect, which

1201:

By "verbose", you seem to mean in plain English, and so you are misusing the term. The word "verbose", means "using too many words". Writing "uranium-235" is not using too many words. It is using (plain English) words. "Nineteen eighty-four" is not verbose, even though you could cut three words and

1012:

IMHO, "triuranium octoxide" is far more widely understood than "U3O8", so the latter is not "much more approachable". It is much *less* approachable. Anyone with a brain knows what carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and iron oxide is, and what uranium is, and can figure out what "triuranium octoxide"

930:

and similar difficult to read symbols don't belong in the normal text of an encyclopedia article (except when telling the reader that this is another way to represent it, that is to say, *mentioning* it rather than using it), because even if the reader is familiar with this notation (a big "if") it

1362:

Nuclide symbols are maybe not only not exactly abbreviations, but are perhaps not exactly symbols either. A nuclide symbol has much in common with a matrix, and much in common with a table, and much in common with a diagram, none of which belong in prose, especially when it must be miniaturized to

1099:

But when should an acronym be used *at all*? That's the issue here. Sure, *if* it's used it should be done as you describe. The ignorant reader can use "control F" to search for "MTU" starting at the top of the article, and quickly find out what it stands for. Unfortunately, the even more ignorant

1347:

This brings me to another problem with nuclide symbols used as abbreviations in prose: the reduced size of the numbers in a problem. For the prose to be readable when printed on paper, when it contains nuclide symbols used in place of the full size names with full size numbers (or an abbreviation

1339:

I'm not sure that nuclide symbols are abbreviations. The term, "uranium-235" can be written as "U-235" which is truly an abbreviation and follows the normal rules for making an abbreviation. Everything is the same except the word "uranium" has been replaced with "U". This is analogous to writing,

994:

doesn't express a preference for how isotopes are written except in formulas (unless I'm missing something). The formula U3O8 is much more approachable than the binomial name, so I disagree with the idea of systematically removing chemical formulas. We generally write in article body assuming the

1624:

I was reading the article and was struck by how out of place the "List of US linear implosion weapons" is. The article doesn't have any other lists of bomb models other than historically significant ones. This list is as US-centric as can be. The preceding and succeeding paragraphs are about how

1343:

With a nuclide symbol, it's not *just* shortened, but rearranged, and the number is miniaturized. It's actually a form of a matrix made up of miniature numbers, as you can see more clearly when the matrix is complete with slots for mass number at top left, atomic number at bottom left, and ionic

1186:

I don't think you are right to say "the standard abbreviated form (235U)". Googling 235U got two million hits, while "U-235" got 550 million. "235U" is an ingenious bit of chemical notation. It is familiar to exceptionally competent students of chemistry, but even then, it takes a lot of time to

1139:

Why should they be labelled like that? What is the advantage in using a compact and unfamiliar notation (albeit ingenious) rather than plain English? The very fact that we, including you, write "Deuterium (2H) and tritium (3H)" shows that the English words are the standard way to refer to these

1028:

I was thrilled by using the nuclide symbol templates for the first time, recently, and so, when I found myself getting irritated by seeing nuclide symbols in the prose parts of articles in Knowledge, I wondered why. I concluded that it was because it was *still* a hassle to stop and decode the

1016:

And even the most brainless reader has heard of the triangle and the tripod, and the octagon and the octopus. "Triuranium octoxide" is plain English. U3O8 requires deciphering. Many people will not even try to decipher it. Those that can decipher it will be slowed down in their reading. People

964:

Encyclopedia Britannica in its article on uranium-235, uses "uranium-235" for the first twenty lines or so, which I liked, but then, with no preamble, or explanation, uses the arcane symbols. I can see how tempting it must have been to use them, but they should, IMHO, have written "uranium-235

951:

In fact, throughout this article, and many other Knowledge articles, and the Simple English Knowledge, the various terms are used more or less at random. It is not Knowledge's job, IMHO, to force the reader to become familiar with hard to read symbols by repeatedly exposing the reader to them.

1029:

symbol, and turn it into "uranium two three five" under my breath, even though I could see the beauty of the symbols, and of the templates. They are ingenious and compact, and invaluable for use in formulas and diagrams, and whenever space is limited. But they don't normally belong in prose.

1568: 912:

says that Co-58m is more usual than 58mCo. Even easier for the layman to understand and pronounce would be "cobalt-58m". Universities, journals, professors, and students may wish to impress, mystify, or even exclude the layman, but it is surely not Knowledge's job to do this. Is it?

905:

Googling usage of nuclide symbols, when to use nuclide symols and so on yielded nothing. Even "don't use that nuclide symbol" yielded nothing about when and when not use a nuclide symbol. I also tried "when to use chemical symbols" and "don't use chemical symbols". Nothing.

1024:

It's even worse when the abbreviation is an unfamiliar one. So, *so* many times, I have seen in Knowledge an unfamiliar abbreviation being defined and then used for the rest of the article, for a total of two or three times, as if to teach the reader, by repeated use, the

330: 140: 1140:

nuclides, and the nuclide symbols are just that, symbols. We say, "he is an unknown quantity", not "he is an x". We that our bones contain calcium, and our blood, iron. We don't say they contain Ca and Fe. We say that we are carbon bases life forms, not C based.

1309:

I replaced some of the nuclide symbols used in prose parts of the article, while leaving unchanged those merely mentioned-- generally they were in parentheses. I think I replaced all the nuclide symbols in the first part (chapter one?) of the article. Part One,

958:"Enriched uranium is best known for its use in the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. The bomb called Little Boy used Uranium-235." The grammar is all over the place as well. And the two forms are combined in this sentence, in the same article it says: 1263:, please. We're rapidly moving away from a question and answer about our manual of style to diatribes. There's no guarantee you'll like the result of a consensus. Radon-219 and 219-Radon both show up in Pubchem, along with other formulations of its synonymns 1060:

Here's a relatively simple proposal: for the first use in any section, spell it out verbose with an appended isotope (uranium-235). For subsequent uses, use the standard abbreviated form (U). Convert the odd hybrids (U-235) to one or the other.

1443:"The uranium-235 nucleus can split in many ways, provided the charge numbers add up to 92 and the mass numbers add up to 236 (uranium-235 plus the neutron that caused the split). The following equation shows one possible split, namely into 1409:

Often, an abbreviation, or indeed the name written out in full, can be replaced with something else, like a pronoun, say, which helps avoid repetitiveness within individual sentences, and within paragraphs. For example, the

1209:

I don't agree that "U-235" is a "hybrid". It is the standard abbreviation of "uranium-235". 235U is an ultra compressed form of it, created for use in equations, much a "x^2" replaces "the square of the unknown quantity".

1706: 1460: 1701: 1371:

And instead of writing "lysine", you *could* use the hypothetical template I mentioned to squeeze a miniaturized version of the line diagram of lysine into the line of text in the prose of a Knowledge article.

1344:

charge at top right. It's awesome when used in an equation, because you can easily see that the mass numbers add up on both sides, and likewise the charge numbers, and so on. But it doesn't belong in prose.

1044:

the second choice to be used in exceptional circumstances, such as when space is limited, as in an equation or diagram. In other words, the "or" is short for, "or, if that's not possible or not practical,"

1322:

string in their templates, but rather a math template that doesn't contain that. Hmm. So I should be able to work on this a bit faster from now on --assuming no one objects. Murphy's law says someone will.

1226:

None of the replies have addressed the fact that Knowledge uses nuclide symbols in prose much more than other encyclopedias. I suggest that it is self indulgence. Knowledge doesn't need to make a profit.

965:

hexafluoride" and "uranium-238 hexafluoride", instead of using nuclide symbols. I repeat, the nuclide symbols should be mentioned at some point, probably only once, in the prose, perhaps in parentheses.

899:"The Nuclide templates are to be used for displaying nuclide, isotope and element symbols, specifically in formulae. They can optionally link to the page for the specific nuclide, isotope or element." 684: 1244: 362: 148: 1156:

Very diplomatic of you. But when one side of a debate is saying that two and two are four, and the other side, that they are five, one should not compromise by agreeing that they are four and half.

66: 1077:

an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used later in the article.

931:

is *still* takes much longer to read. Also, in Knowledge, space is essentially unlimited because Knowledge is not normally printed on paper so there is no advantage to being super compact.

378: 346: 152: 144: 1686: 1100:

reader won't habitually use "control F". See, readers don't always read the whole article, and if they do, they, don't always read it from start to finish, but rather jump around.

1751: 934:

It *does* belong, IMHO, in diagrams and formulas (when space is limited, and that's not always the case), and anywhere else where space is limited, or the writer's time is.

221: 178: 1245:

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Radon-219#%3A%7E%3Atext=Radon-219+atom+is+a%2CMedical+Subject+Headings+%28MeSH%29&section=IUPAC-Name&fullscreen=true

1676: 1691: 487: 207: 1013:

must mean. With a bit of luck the lay reader will also have heard of trinitrotoluene or trinitroglycerine, especially if reading about nuclear weapon design.

955:

Just did a quick survey of the top encyclopedia results on Google, for this. The Simple English Knowledge uses a wrongly capitalized "Uranium-235", in,

101: 1117:

Isotopes should be labelled by their mass number, e.g. C and F. Deuterium (H) and tritium (H) may be labelled "D" (or "D") and "T" (or "T"), respectively.

1696: 1726: 1671: 1761: 1746: 991: 703:

I can't seem to be able to do it. The best I could do was create a subscript followed by a superscript followed by a "U", which is not quite right.

477: 1681: 692: 1563:{\displaystyle \ {}^{235}\mathrm {U} +\mathrm {n} \longrightarrow {}^{95}\mathrm {Sr} +{}^{139}\mathrm {Xe} +2\ \mathrm {n} +180\ \mathrm {MeV} } 1395:"It seems like the Manual of Style allows for multiple possibilities." That was also my impression when I had a look, after VQuakr mentioned it. 846:

Thanks that is awesome. It works like you said. I tried adding link=yes and it made it into a link. And it works for molecules, too. Fantastic.

1721: 173: 135: 430: 1736: 1716: 555: 182: 1756: 622: 617: 612: 30: 1731: 1711: 453: 1741: 546: 510: 1666: 937:

Nuclear weapon design uses U-235, uranium-235, and of course the arcane, hard to read symbols mixed together, for example in,

1630: 902:

The phrase, "specifically in formulae", could be taken to mean "exclusively in formulae", but it isn't crystal clear to me.

1295:

I'm more in the "write out the first time, abbreviate afterwards" camp, but my feelings on it are not particularly strong.

444: 405: 1229:

And none of the replies have stated what are the advantages of using nuclide symbols in prose instead of plain English.

110: 1340:"the United States" as "the US". "U-235" is IMHO the best abbreviation for "uranium-235, if (a big "if") one needs one. 655: 1436:

What I'm talking about is not new to Knowledge, or even to the article. The following paragraph the Fission section (

1375:

readable even without a magnifying glass, at one's typical choice of font for that type of document) abbreviation.

1626: 634: 20: 1610: 1586: 1427: 1400: 1384: 1353: 1330: 1286: 1251: 1234: 1215: 1192: 1175: 1161: 1145: 1105: 1066: 1049: 1034: 981: 851: 835: 708: 945: 771: 762: 177:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 1379:

is perhaps a little difficult to make cut and dried (although it is in practice IMHO just as important).

116: 87: 1606: 1582: 1423: 1396: 1380: 1349: 1326: 1282: 1247: 1230: 1211: 1188: 1171: 1157: 1141: 1101: 1062: 1045: 1030: 977: 847: 831: 704: 554:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

452:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1646: 1129: 1089: 746: 675:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

640: 1017:

forget, it seems that long words can be read just as fast as short ones, if they are familiar.

688: 538: 33:. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. 889:

rather than uranium-235 or U-235 and are there guidelines about this in place at Knowledge?

1300: 1271: 1260: 1000: 636: 595: 1170:

These are matters of convention, not matters of fact. Writing is always about compromises.

338: 1080: 821: 436: 1320:

It took me about an hour to do "Chapter One" using control F with the string "sup: -->

1264: 522: 504: 1660: 1641: 1124: 1120: 1084: 741: 722: 909: 1640:

How about sourcing it? Hansen (1988), pp. 21, 28, 174-176. You can drop the list.

638: 1651: 1634: 1614: 1590: 1431: 1419:"X is important, and many want it. It has been important for at least 35 years." 1404: 1388: 1357: 1334: 1304: 1296: 1290: 1275: 1267: 1255: 1238: 1219: 1196: 1179: 1165: 1149: 1134: 1109: 1094: 1070: 1053: 1038: 1004: 996: 985: 855: 839: 825: 751: 712: 671: 420: 399: 370: 322: 995:

reader is generally familiar with the concept so I don't see any issues there.

354: 1413:"X is important, and many want x. X has been important for at least 35 years." 551: 532: 528: 426: 1444: 817: 1437: 1311: 1202:

use "1984" instead. The term, "uranium-235" is the IUPAC name, by the way.

944:. The two fissile materials used in nuclear weapons are: U, also known as 941: 699:

Is there a way to squeeze a "92" subscript under the "238" superscript?

449: 1581:

I think it illustrates the advantages of the format/style quite well.

1367:

the water molecule, conveniently showing the angle between the bonds.

1243:

I just found out that the IUPAC name is radon-219. Here's the link:

893: 165: 129: 1448: 797: 1312:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Nuclear_weapon_design#Nuclear_reactions

641: 589: 81: 1707:

Military science, technology, and theory task force articles

1317:

If you have no objection, I will do some more of the article

369: 353: 337: 321: 206: 666:

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

1702:

C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles

940:"Materials which can sustain a chain reaction are called 718:

Well you could do that, but the better way is to use our

961:

Uranium-235 has Pa, Np, and Pu as its parent isotopes.

59: 1438:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Nuclear_weapon_design#Fission

1463: 1075:

That would be the same as our treatment of acronyms

550:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 448:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 219:

This article has been checked against the following

973:should probably start imitating this encyclopedia. 331:

Military science, technology, and theory task force

304: 218: 1562: 830:That works like you said. Thanks a lot. Fabulous. 910:https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Nuclear_isomer 1620:List of US linear implosion weapons - Artillery 1687:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Technology 1601:Adding charge numbers to some nuclide symbols. 1422:Readability is thereby improved considerably. 976:Anyway, I'm all ears. What are your thoughts? 969:be compassionate. We are here to help, right? 649:This page has archives. Sections older than 8: 948:(HEU), "oralloy" meaning "Oak Ridge alloy", 1752:C-Class physics articles of Mid-importance 992:WP:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Isotopes 728:template. {{chem|238|92|U}} will give you 499: 394: 301: 215: 124: 38: 15: 1549: 1536: 1520: 1514: 1512: 1500: 1494: 1492: 1483: 1475: 1469: 1467: 1462: 894:https://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Nuclide 1451:(Xe), and two neutrons (n), plus energy 171:This article is within the scope of the 501: 396: 126: 85: 1677:Knowledge vital articles in Technology 1325:Does anyone know a faster/better way? 1116: 1076: 878:What are your thoughts on when to use 659:when more than 4 sections are present. 191:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history 181:. To use this banner, please see the 194:Template:WikiProject Military history 7: 1692:C-Class vital articles in Technology 544:This article is within the scope of 442:This article is within the scope of 115:It is of interest to the following 1556: 1553: 1550: 1537: 1524: 1521: 1504: 1501: 1484: 1476: 816:with link=yes if you want a link. 680: 676: 14: 1697:C-Class military history articles 653:may be automatically archived by 1727:World War II task force articles 1672:Knowledge level-5 vital articles 683:. Further details are available 670: 594: 564:Knowledge:WikiProject Technology 531: 521: 503: 429: 419: 398: 278: 267: 256: 245: 234: 164: 128: 95: 86: 19: 1762:WikiProject Technology articles 1747:Mid-importance physics articles 567:Template:WikiProject Technology 482:This article has been rated as 1682:C-Class level-5 vital articles 1488: 1009:I'll have a look at your link. 1: 1722:C-Class World War II articles 1389:17:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC) 1358:16:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC) 558:and see a list of open tasks. 462:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics 456:and see a list of open tasks. 1737:Cold War task force articles 1717:Weaponry task force articles 1652:19:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC) 1635:13:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC) 465:Template:WikiProject Physics 174:Military history WikiProject 1757:C-Class Technology articles 1615:21:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC) 1591:16:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC) 1432:16:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC) 1405:01:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC) 1335:19:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC) 1305:19:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC) 1291:18:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC) 1276:16:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC) 1256:23:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 1239:22:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 1220:15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC) 1197:22:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 1180:18:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) 1166:21:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 1150:22:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 1135:19:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC) 1110:22:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 1095:19:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC) 1071:13:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC) 1054:23:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 1039:21:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 1005:20:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 986:17:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 856:14:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 840:15:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 1778: 488:project's importance scale 239:Referencing and citation: 26:This article is part of a 1732:C-Class Cold War articles 1712:C-Class weaponry articles 892:All I could find was, at 826:05:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC) 758:More usual would be with 752:23:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 713:23:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 516: 481: 414: 377: 361: 345: 329: 300: 197:military history articles 159: 123: 41: 37: 1742:C-Class physics articles 67:Featured topic candidate 31:featured topic candidate 946:highly enriched uranium 363:World War II task force 305:Associated task forces: 250:Coverage and accuracy: 1667:C-Class vital articles 1564: 656:Lowercase sigmabot III 547:WikiProject Technology 374: 358: 342: 326: 283:Supporting materials: 211: 1565: 687:. Student editor(s): 373: 357: 341: 325: 210: 102:level-5 vital article 1627:Gravel for breakfast 1461: 919:My feeling is that 874:versus uranium-235. 570:Technology articles 445:WikiProject Physics 381:(c. 1945 – c. 1989) 379:Cold War task force 347:Weaponry task force 272:Grammar and style: 225:for B-class status: 1560: 1416:can be changed to, 685:on the course page 375: 359: 343: 327: 212: 179:list of open tasks 111:content assessment 42:Article milestones 1548: 1535: 1465: 663: 662: 628: 627: 586: 585: 582: 581: 578: 577: 539:Technology portal 498: 497: 494: 493: 393: 392: 389: 388: 385: 384: 296: 295: 241:criterion not met 183:full instructions 80: 79: 76: 75: 1769: 1649: 1644: 1569: 1567: 1566: 1561: 1559: 1547: 1540: 1534: 1527: 1519: 1518: 1513: 1507: 1499: 1498: 1493: 1487: 1479: 1474: 1473: 1468: 1464: 1440:) is an example: 1363:fit into a line. 1132: 1127: 1092: 1087: 929: 927: 926: 888: 886: 885: 873: 871: 870: 815: 813: 812: 805: 804: 794: 793: 792: 785: 784: 775: 767: 761: 749: 744: 739: 737: 736: 727: 721: 693:article contribs 682: 678: 674: 658: 642: 609: 608: 598: 590: 572: 571: 568: 565: 562: 541: 536: 535: 525: 518: 517: 507: 500: 470: 469: 468:physics articles 466: 463: 460: 439: 434: 433: 423: 416: 415: 410: 402: 395: 312: 302: 286: 282: 281: 275: 271: 270: 264: 260: 259: 253: 249: 248: 242: 238: 237: 216: 199: 198: 195: 192: 189: 188:Military history 168: 161: 160: 155: 136:Military history 132: 125: 108: 99: 98: 91: 90: 82: 62: 39: 23: 16: 1777: 1776: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1657: 1656: 1647: 1642: 1622: 1603: 1511: 1491: 1466: 1459: 1458: 1130: 1125: 1090: 1085: 962: 925: 922: 921: 920: 884: 881: 880: 879: 876: 869: 866: 865: 864: 811: 808: 807: 803: 799: 798: 796: 791: 788: 787: 783: 779: 778: 777: 769: 765: 759: 747: 742: 735: 731: 730: 729: 725: 719: 701: 668: 654: 643: 637: 603: 569: 566: 563: 560: 559: 537: 530: 467: 464: 461: 458: 457: 435: 428: 408: 310: 284: 279: 273: 268: 262: 257: 251: 246: 240: 235: 196: 193: 190: 187: 186: 138: 109:on Knowledge's 106: 96: 58: 12: 11: 5: 1775: 1773: 1765: 1764: 1759: 1754: 1749: 1744: 1739: 1734: 1729: 1724: 1719: 1714: 1709: 1704: 1699: 1694: 1689: 1684: 1679: 1674: 1669: 1659: 1658: 1655: 1654: 1621: 1618: 1607:Polar Apposite 1602: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1583:Polar Apposite 1579: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1558: 1555: 1552: 1546: 1543: 1539: 1533: 1530: 1526: 1523: 1517: 1510: 1506: 1503: 1497: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1472: 1441: 1434: 1424:Polar Apposite 1420: 1417: 1414: 1411: 1407: 1397:Polar Apposite 1393: 1392: 1391: 1381:Polar Apposite 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1350:Polar Apposite 1345: 1341: 1337: 1327:Polar Apposite 1323: 1318: 1315: 1283:NuclearSecrets 1278: 1248:Polar Apposite 1241: 1231:Polar Apposite 1227: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1212:Polar Apposite 1207: 1203: 1199: 1189:Polar Apposite 1184: 1183: 1182: 1172:NuclearSecrets 1158:Polar Apposite 1154: 1153: 1152: 1142:Polar Apposite 1114: 1113: 1112: 1102:Polar Apposite 1081:MOS:ACRO1STUSE 1063:NuclearSecrets 1058: 1057: 1056: 1046:Polar Apposite 1041: 1031:Polar Apposite 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 978:Polar Apposite 960: 924: 923: 883: 882: 875: 868: 867: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 848:Polar Apposite 844: 843: 842: 832:Polar Apposite 810: 809: 801: 800: 790: 789: 781: 780: 772:ComplexNuclide 763:ComplexNuclide 756: 733: 732: 705:Polar Apposite 700: 697: 667: 664: 661: 660: 648: 645: 644: 639: 635: 633: 630: 629: 626: 625: 620: 615: 605: 604: 599: 593: 584: 583: 580: 579: 576: 575: 573: 556:the discussion 543: 542: 526: 514: 513: 508: 496: 495: 492: 491: 484:Mid-importance 480: 474: 473: 471: 454:the discussion 441: 440: 437:Physics portal 424: 412: 411: 409:Mid‑importance 403: 391: 390: 387: 386: 383: 382: 376: 366: 365: 360: 350: 349: 344: 334: 333: 328: 318: 317: 315: 313: 307: 306: 298: 297: 294: 293: 291: 289: 288: 287: 276: 265: 254: 243: 229: 228: 226: 213: 203: 202: 200: 169: 157: 156: 133: 121: 120: 114: 92: 78: 77: 74: 73: 70: 63: 60:April 29, 2006 55: 54: 51: 48: 44: 43: 35: 34: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1774: 1763: 1760: 1758: 1755: 1753: 1750: 1748: 1745: 1743: 1740: 1738: 1735: 1733: 1730: 1728: 1725: 1723: 1720: 1718: 1715: 1713: 1710: 1708: 1705: 1703: 1700: 1698: 1695: 1693: 1690: 1688: 1685: 1683: 1680: 1678: 1675: 1673: 1670: 1668: 1665: 1664: 1662: 1653: 1650: 1645: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1619: 1617: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1600: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1577: 1544: 1541: 1531: 1528: 1515: 1508: 1495: 1480: 1470: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1439: 1435: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1418: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1319: 1316: 1313: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1279: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1262: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1246: 1242: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1133: 1128: 1122: 1121:MOS:CHEMISTRY 1118: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1093: 1088: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1042: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1027: 1025:abbreviation. 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1002: 998: 993: 990: 989: 988: 987: 983: 979: 974: 970: 966: 959: 956: 953: 949: 947: 943: 938: 935: 932: 917: 914: 911: 907: 903: 900: 897: 895: 890: 863: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 828: 827: 823: 819: 814: 773: 764: 757: 755: 754: 753: 750: 745: 724: 717: 716: 715: 714: 710: 706: 698: 696: 694: 690: 686: 677:28 March 2022 673: 665: 657: 652: 647: 646: 632: 631: 624: 621: 619: 616: 614: 611: 610: 607: 606: 602: 597: 592: 591: 588: 574: 557: 553: 549: 548: 540: 534: 529: 527: 524: 520: 519: 515: 512: 509: 506: 502: 489: 485: 479: 476: 475: 472: 455: 451: 447: 446: 438: 432: 427: 425: 422: 418: 417: 413: 407: 404: 401: 397: 380: 372: 368: 367: 364: 356: 352: 351: 348: 340: 336: 335: 332: 324: 320: 319: 316: 314: 309: 308: 303: 299: 292: 290: 285:criterion met 277: 274:criterion met 266: 263:criterion met 255: 252:criterion met 244: 233: 232: 231: 230: 227: 224: 223: 217: 214: 209: 205: 204: 201: 184: 180: 176: 175: 170: 167: 163: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 137: 134: 131: 127: 122: 118: 112: 104: 103: 93: 89: 84: 83: 71: 69: 68: 64: 61: 57: 56: 52: 49: 46: 45: 40: 36: 32: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 1623: 1604: 1445:strontium-95 975: 971: 967: 963: 957: 954: 950: 939: 936: 933: 918: 915: 908: 904: 901: 898: 891: 877: 776:to generate 702: 689:Lesotelo1218 669: 650: 600: 587: 545: 483: 443: 220: 172: 149:World War II 117:WikiProjects 100: 72:Not promoted 65: 27: 681:30 May 2022 261:Structure: 1661:Categories 1410:paragraph: 768:, such as 561:Technology 552:technology 511:Technology 141:Technology 1648:(discuss) 1449:xenon-139 1261:WP:THREAD 1131:(discuss) 1091:(discuss) 748:(discuss) 623:Archive 3 618:Archive 2 613:Archive 1 105:is rated 1643:Hawkeye7 1126:Hawkeye7 1086:Hawkeye7 774:|U|235}} 743:Hawkeye7 601:Archives 222:criteria 153:Cold War 145:Weaponry 942:fissile 896:, was: 651:90 days 486:on the 459:Physics 450:Physics 406:Physics 107:C-class 50:Process 1447:(Sr), 1297:VQuakr 1268:VQuakr 997:VQuakr 113:scale. 53:Result 28:former 94:This 1631:talk 1611:talk 1587:talk 1428:talk 1401:talk 1385:talk 1354:talk 1331:talk 1301:talk 1287:talk 1272:talk 1252:talk 1235:talk 1216:talk 1193:talk 1176:talk 1162:talk 1146:talk 1106:talk 1067:talk 1050:talk 1035:talk 1001:talk 982:talk 852:talk 836:talk 822:talk 818:Gah4 723:chem 709:talk 679:and 47:Date 1545:180 1516:139 1471:235 795:or 695:). 478:Mid 1663:: 1633:) 1613:) 1589:) 1496:95 1489:⟶ 1430:) 1403:) 1387:) 1356:) 1333:) 1303:) 1289:) 1274:) 1266:. 1254:) 1237:) 1218:) 1195:) 1178:) 1164:) 1148:) 1123:) 1108:) 1083:) 1069:) 1052:) 1037:) 1003:) 984:) 854:) 838:) 824:) 802:92 782:92 770:{{ 766:}} 760:{{ 740:. 734:92 726:}} 720:{{ 711:) 311:/ 151:/ 147:/ 143:/ 139:: 1629:( 1609:( 1585:( 1578:" 1557:V 1554:e 1551:M 1542:+ 1538:n 1532:2 1529:+ 1525:e 1522:X 1509:+ 1505:r 1502:S 1485:n 1481:+ 1477:U 1426:( 1399:( 1383:( 1352:( 1329:( 1314:. 1299:( 1285:( 1270:( 1250:( 1233:( 1214:( 1191:( 1174:( 1160:( 1144:( 1119:( 1104:( 1079:( 1065:( 1048:( 1033:( 999:( 980:( 928:U 887:U 872:U 850:( 834:( 820:( 806:U 786:U 738:U 707:( 691:( 490:. 185:. 119::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index