Talk:Operation Teapot

inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The article

]

• Support merge. We could tag it as {{R with possibilities}}, perhaps, just in case the filming of these historic sequences has been sufficiently documented in
  talk) 01:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - Why was it a separate article in the first place?Petebutt (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Its creator,
  talk) 23:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I don't think there's anything worth merging. As you say, the "Survival Town" film isn't notable, and if we're only using it to supplement this article, Operation Cue is a more useful and comprehensive reference. I'm going to be bold and just redirect it. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Article currently says

Apple-1 ... Area 4 ... 14 kilotons ... Failed

Apple-2 ... Area 1 ... 29 kilotons ... Rerun of Apple-1

This needs further explanation: What exactly is meant by "Failed"? Is the stated 14kt a projected estimate which didn't materialize? Or did it "fizzle" compared to the full 29kt of No2? And what exactly is meant by "Rerun"? I mean if Apple-2 was the one with the "Survival Town" experiment on Area 1, I bet they didn't move the whole town there from Area 4, or did they? --BjKa (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the current article says:

Apple-1 ... Area 4 ... 14 kT, expected 40 kT ... Primary failed

Apple-2 ... Area 1 ... 29 kT ... (doesn't mention Apple-1)

Yes, It could be expanded a bit. Both shots were in the original planning, as far as I can tell. Apple-1 had a minor weapons-effect component; the major effort was designed to be with Apple-2. Apple-1 was a fizzle; the secondary didn't add anything to the explosion, which was expected to run to 40 kt. It might be that Apple-2 was intended from the beginning to be another test of the same bomb; it was modified a bit after Apple-1, and scored below 40 kt but apparently high enough to please the testers. They were both separately built up (for CD preparedness studies) from the outset around two areas on a north-south axis, separated by about 4 miles. SkoreKeep (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 02:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1967). Hearings and reports on atomic energy, Volume 20 Hearings and Reports on Atomic Energy, United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Compiled by Melvin Price, Publisher U.S. G.P.O., 1957, Original from University of Chicago, Digitized Dec 16, 2010.

Pages 438, 757 skyshine. pg776

in shot MET &/or Apple-2 house construction, pg 720 multi-storey scale model experimental tests, 799 basement areas with highest PF protection factor of 40, 756 calculated methods, 823 areas that fallout may pile up outside of houses with wind.

This book is also calledStructure shielding against fallout gamma rays from nuclear detonations By Lewis Van Clief Spencer, Arthur B. Chilton, Charles Eisenhauer, Center for Radiation Research, United States. National Bureau of Standards, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Video for some of these tests was recently released by Livermore and is now on Wikimedia Commons. Here's one camera angle from angles for Teapot/Tesla (several angles are available).198.58.162.200 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Operation Teapot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dtra.mil/documents/ntpr/relatedpub/DNATR966041F.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dtra.mil/documents/ntpr/historical/1955%20-%20DNA%206009F%20-%20Operation%20TEAPOT.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012160826/http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf to http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of the article.

Overall, this article is severely lacking in information. The chart is poorly generated and too large to be convenient in research. The strength of the article is that it provides a decent overview of the number of tests. It can be improved by adding additional information about individual tests. There are several books about nuclear tests and the Federal Civil Defense Administration did publish booklets to explain the tests. The addition of more contextual information and a wider variety of tests would help understand Operation Teapot. This article is not well-developed and is very incomplete. The chart alone lists 14 tests but only 4 receive some type of information. Jamespgj (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]