Talk:Little Boy (atomic bomb): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (I am not objecting; I simply wish that a convention had been enforced long ago) |
imported>Chris Day |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:I suspect more people would start with "tank" or "rifle" than the designation, if generally searching for someone There are literally dozens of nuclear weapons types, mostly having a letter and number; LITTLE BOY and FAT MAN were exceptions. The tests, as operations, had names, but the individual weapons did not -- well, the first fusion device was called Mike, but the operation was CASTLE BRAVO. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:44, 26 September 2008 (CDT) | :I suspect more people would start with "tank" or "rifle" than the designation, if generally searching for someone There are literally dozens of nuclear weapons types, mostly having a letter and number; LITTLE BOY and FAT MAN were exceptions. The tests, as operations, had names, but the individual weapons did not -- well, the first fusion device was called Mike, but the operation was CASTLE BRAVO. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:44, 26 September 2008 (CDT) | ||
::Remember that in the abc field you can have the order switched such that all related terms sort together in the categories. For example, LITTLE BOY (nuclear weapon) and FAT MAN (nuclear weapon) would be ''nuclear weapon, LITTLE BOY'' and ''nuclear weapon, FAT BOY'' respectively in the abc field of the metadata. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:59, 26 September 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 20:59, 26 September 2008
Article name
Per CZ:Naming Conventions, this article should live at Little Boy (nuclear weapon), or if you absolutely must insist, LITTLE BOY (nuclear weapon). Despite the comma-style practice that Richard Jensen started (singlehandedly and against my repeated objections), it is not CZ policy to use commas in this way for disambiguation. We use parentheses for these. --Larry Sanger 21:30, 26 September 2008 (CDT)
- Parentheses actually make more sense. Please do not confuse me with someone that tremendously cares about Jensen's practices; by all means, let's plan to get things back to Battle of Gettysburg. I am following what appeared to be an accepted pattern, which people with appropriate permissions could have changed long ago.
- At least in the military area, particularly U.S., I do think there is merit to having major-term (minor-term) disambiguation. For some obscure reason that the Soviets were careful to avoid, the U.S. tends to do things like having an M1 tank and an M1 rifle, an M60 machine gun and an M60 tank, etc. In one series of designations, a B61 is a missile and in another series, a nuclear bomb.
- I suspect more people would start with "tank" or "rifle" than the designation, if generally searching for someone There are literally dozens of nuclear weapons types, mostly having a letter and number; LITTLE BOY and FAT MAN were exceptions. The tests, as operations, had names, but the individual weapons did not -- well, the first fusion device was called Mike, but the operation was CASTLE BRAVO. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:44, 26 September 2008 (CDT)
- Remember that in the abc field you can have the order switched such that all related terms sort together in the categories. For example, LITTLE BOY (nuclear weapon) and FAT MAN (nuclear weapon) would be nuclear weapon, LITTLE BOY and nuclear weapon, FAT BOY respectively in the abc field of the metadata. Chris Day 21:59, 26 September 2008 (CDT)