Talk:Hydrogen bomb

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Physics

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles

Comments[edit]

Gave wikipedia a stand alone hydrogen bomb page, feel free to add pictures or other things to the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by anonymous (talk • contribs)

This is also the name of a level in "Duke Nukem:Zero Hour ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuxhero (talk • contribs)

Copyvio[edit]

The article appeares to be coied from The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2006. In any case, the article is a duplicate so a redirect is appropriate. -- Whpq 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio text is back again. I'm reverting to the redirect. Akriasas (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whatever the "Teller–Ulam" design?? is, it certainly is not a hydrogen bomb. hydrogen bomb is a fission driven device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.192.235.118 (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0824719.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect[edit]

If Thermonuclear bomb redirects, so should this one. NPguy (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good argument. I can make an argument like: French Wikipedia has an article on hydrogen bomb, so we should have an article too. In general, the page should be redirected if the topic is not important nor notable. Clearly, "hydrogen bomb" is notable; it deserves a standalone article. -- Taku (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proper technical term is Thermonuclear weapon. If there is to be a standalone article, that should be it. This would redirect there. The other main article on this topic is Teller-Ulam device. There should not be a proliferation of articles - particularly stubs - with nearly identical (in principle, if not in practice) scope. NPguy (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter what a technical term should be. Is it really your argument that people in general use these terms instead of hydrogen bomb? In newspapers/magazines, you can surely find a term "hydrogen bomb" (if not much in today's papers). This article doesn't have to be limited to technical matters; it can discuss for example historical events related to hydrogen bombs. I agree that there will be some overlaps, but the topic is clearly notable enough to deserve the standalone article. -- Taku (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are all essentially equivalent. There is no need for separate articles. "Hydrogen bomb" a common term, but it is not notable as a distinct topic from thermonuclear weapons. If you want to move the limited content of this stub into the main article, that would be fine. NPguy (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in any content. The question: should Wikipedia has an article on "hydrogen bomb", which would cover not only "thermonuclear weapon" aspect of it but also historical/political aspect. To me this answer is yes. What I have in mind is a much expanded version of the "Hydrogen bombs" section in Nuclear weapon design. -- Taku (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Hydrogen bomb" and "thermonuclear weapon" are synonyms, and both are fully covered in the article on Teller-Ulam design. It's not necessarily the title I would pick for the main article, but that's how it has evolved. Wikipedia uses redirects to avoid duplicative or competing content on identical or nearly identical topics. Did you look at that article? I suggest you add any history there. NPguy (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not necessarily the title I would pick for the main article, but that's how it has evolved"; now that's exactly the point I'm trying to get to. Because this page was a redirect, it didn't developed into a full article. But the mistake can and be corrected. I'm aware that Teller-Ulam design covers a technical aspect very well, but it's not a good place to discuss political or social aspect. Also, the title isn't a good one. To give an example, Senescence and Aging are technically the same thing, but we still have separate articles, in part because the latter is a standard term. As I keep saying it is not content per se that I'm interested at, but the title of the article. So, I will once again undo your change. Hope this doesn't irritate you too much. -- Taku (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is Neutron bomb. Again it's odd not to have this article. -- Taku (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen bomb, in popular usage, is a synonym for a thermonuclear weapon (ie. the Teller-Ulam design). They're not two separate subjects which need separate articles; they should be covered in one article. Therefore, one should redirect to the other. I would be open to a requested move if teller-ulam isn't the best place to put that single article. bobrayner (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, I started a requested move at Teller–Ulam design. -- Taku (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pick a single title, it is better to have one that is accurate. "Hydrogen bomb," though popular, is not. "Thermonuclear weapon" is better. NPguy (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we're supposed to use a more easily recognized name than a technically accurate one. Anyway, I started a request move of Teller–Ulam design to Thermonuclear weapon. I can appreciate if you can express/repeat your opinion there. -- Taku (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]