Jump to content

Talk:Operation Totem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleOperation Totem has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic starOperation Totem is part of the Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 24, 2018Good article nomineeListed
June 26, 2019Good topic candidatePromoted
April 2, 2020WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 4, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that The Atomic Tank (pictured) was subjected to the Operation Totem nuclear tests, but remained operational for another 23 years, including 15 months in the Vietnam War?
Current status: Good article

The table on this page is generated by database

[edit]

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) 15:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SkoreKeep, good to see your explanatory text above. The reason I removed the note was that it explained a number of things that were not relevant to this particular series of two tests. It was codenamed, that's clear, but that's in the article title - there's no need for that to be repeated in the footnote. It was not numbered in a Totem 1-1, Totem 1-2 or any other such series, as explained in the footnote, so there was no need for that sentence either. There was no need for translation into English, and the test was not cancelled, nor aborted. None of the sentences were required to explain this test, though they may have been very helpful for explaining other tests. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Totem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Not a lot to nitpick with this one, so up to your usual high standard. I've read it through twice and could only find the following pretty minor things:

That's me done. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]