Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

I've done some edits for this template to improve it, but when you click on one of the article in the template, the template does not display the most recent modifications. I had to go through each article included in the template and repaste the template name to make it show up correctly, unfortunately I realized a few things needed changes after the fact and once again these don't show up on the template attached to an article page. Anyone know how to fix this? I've never seen this issue with other templates. Stormchaser89 (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template is a mess.

Some obvious problems:

• The W44 is listed as an unboosted warhead but is clearly a Tsetse primary design, which was boosted.
• Robin is listed as unboosted. It seems unlikely the primary stage used on high efficiency warheads like the W47 would be unboosted. I can't find a source for it being so. The W45 is a Robin primary so that should also be removed from the unboosted list. The W47 primary was also known to be hollow.
• As above, MADM is a W45 derived nuclear weapon and is therefore likely a boosted weapon.
• I strongly doubt that the W54 was boosted. The weapon's very small size and weight likely precludes boosting. Yield also does not match the claim. The highest yield production version was only 1kt. For the same reason the SADM was probably not boosted.
• The B57 is listed as a thermonuclear weapon but only has a yield of 20kt. While it is possible it could be thermonuclear, it seems unlikely given the yield. It's far more likely to be a boosted weapon.
• the B61 is listed as a depth bomb despite never having the capability.
• The W55 is listed as thermonuclear despite only having a yield of 5kt. Very unlikely. Will need a very robust source to back it up.
• The W81 is listed as a thermonuclear weapon despite most sources listing is as the primary stage of a W80.
• The W65 is listed as a thermonuclear weapon. No evidence is given to support this in the article. The claim seems unlikely given Sprint was looking for a low-kt warhead (and ultimately selecting the W66).

I'd like to suggest we consolidate the fission only and boosted section into one as distinguishing between them is very difficult, add a neutron weapon section, and retain the thermonuclear section. I'd remove primary stages that were not deployed alone as weapons and add them to a new section called something like "nuclear components". Kylesenior (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since I raised the issues above more than three years ago, the problem has apparently only gotten worse. As no one was apparently interested in discussing it, I took it upon myself to rework the template.

The issues:

• Over categorisation - people kept adding additional categories, most of which were vague and superfluous. "Bunker buster"? Most of the thermonuclear weapons on this list an be used in that role given tey have contact fuzing and a high yield.
• Lack of evidence to support claims - many of the devices listed were in categories that were not supported by the articles they link to. For example there in nothing in the article that says the W33-1 was a boosted device.
• Mod is supposed to be capitalised. It's a name, a proper noun. Not to mention US military documents also capitalise it. Does matter, I switched them all to short form.
• I've merged the unboosted and boosted categories. While information on what devices were thermonuclear is commonly available, what devices were boosted or unboosted is not. Much of the list appeared to be pulled out of thin air and was unsupported.Kylesenior (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any way to differentiate between current and former weapons without turning this into a mess? Or are there only a handful of types still in active service? --The Vital One (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might be able to bold active weapons. Kylesenior (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]