Template talk:Manhattan Project

Additions to list

I think we should guard against being too stringent or narrow in the criteria in adding articles to this template. For instance, I notice that William L. Uanna, which I listed, and the Oppenheimer security hearing, which User:Uruiamme added, were removed by my good friend User:Hawkeye7. While I can understand removal of the latter, but the Uanna article involves a person of great consequence to the atomic project. I'm not even getting to his being portrayed by James Whitmore in a film on the Hiroshima bombing. The Uanna article is somewhat lacking, but still provides information of consequence. I don't believe the absence of it being GA worthy is such as to warrant removal, as indicated in the edit summary. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he is that significant a figure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

But he is notable enough to have an article. I don't think we should be exercising editorial discretion to include or exclude articles from templates based upon our view of the strength of their notability. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

But there are 308 people in the Manhattan Project category! All are notable enough to have articles, but I want to keep the navigation box down to the 80 best and most significant articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's a valid point. We certainly don't want every one. I noticed that Uanna was referred to in his article as having a "crucial role" in the project, but I am not sure how it got there, whether it was a Wikipedia editor (myself?) opining or whether the reliable sources say that too. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The source says "played a critical role in maintaining security of the atomic bomb project". I wrote: "was a United States security expert. Uanna held many top security positions, including being a security officer on the Manhattan Project and Chief of the Division of Physical Security at the Department of State" and you changed it to "was a United States security expert, who gained prominence for his crucial role as security officer on the Manhattan Project, which built the first atomic bomb during World War II. He later served as Chief of the Division of Physical Security at the Department of State".[1] It reads much better, but overstates his role. So I have deleted "for his crucial". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

CIC7 has chimed in with suggested references. I'll apply them tonight, and we'll see if we can run Bud Unanna through GA again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with your changes. I'm not OK with this, and have neither the time nor the patience to prevent that article from being a repository for OR. I definitely do not believe it should be in this template, or GA, while this kind of material is in the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we formulate consistent criteria for inclusion in this template, so that it is not left up to the arbitrary judgments of Wikipedia editors. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here is my proposed criterion:

• We want to try and limit the navigation box to 80 articles or so
• All of which must be rated GA or better

1. Sites: All the most significant sites
2. Administrators: The most important heads of sites and laboratories, plus the most notable of the rest
3. Scientists: Everyone who won a Nobel Prize, plus the most notable of the rest
4. Operations: The most important operations, units and aircraft
5. Weapons: The most important weapons
6. Related topics: Particularly notable related topics

• I realise that this is a little vague in places, but the idea is that once capped, we can argue the merits of one article against another in the same way that they do with the vital articles. But at the moment, I am still bringing the last of the articles up to GA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the Oppenheimer security hearing again, I think it can be brought up to GA standard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Now somebody wants Harry Daghlian, presumably to keep Louis Slotin company. Nominated it for GA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)