Talk:B-Reactor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
B-Reactor was completed in September of 1944
I don't think this is correct but I don't know what the correct date is, this should be checked.
Trinity device, tested at Los Alamos in New Mexico, and the Fat Man bomb, later dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, was created in the B, D and F reactors.
First sentence, third paragraph.
Technically, the bomb was detonated in Alamagordo, New Mexico, Alamagordo is a couple hundred miles south of the Los Alamos National Labs. Think about it, are you going to build the mother of all bombs inside the shop building? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.13.180 (talk) 03:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NHL status
Anybody notice the Park Service is considering the B Reactor for National Historic Landmark status? Murderbike 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merger of B Reactor with Hanford Site
Don't merge I don't think it's necessary. For precedence, the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a separate article. Einbierbitte (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- The possible merger was also discussed in Good Article discussion in Talk:Hanford Site. doncram (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Don't merge. B-Reactor is notable enough to merit its own article, which may be expanded in the future. To include this information in Hanford Site would overwhelm the Hanford article, which has a much broader scope and is already sufficiently long. Hanford Site is currently a Featured article candidate. It has been suggested that it would be good to conclude the B-Reactor merge discussion before Hanford gets to FA status, in the interest of stability. Please chime in, and if other editors agree that the merge is not a good idea, we should remove the tag so the FA discussion can go forward. Thanks.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't merge. The assertion of notability in this article's first two sentences is very strong. This is not merely "one of many" reactors at the site, but the first of its kind. Worthy of an article of its own, which will hopefully be expanded and better sourced at some time in the not-so-distant future. -Pete (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't merge. B-Reactor is notable enough to merit its own article, which may be expanded in the future. To include this information in Hanford Site would overwhelm the Hanford article, which has a much broader scope and is already sufficiently long. Hanford Site is currently a Featured article candidate. It has been suggested that it would be good to conclude the B-Reactor merge discussion before Hanford gets to FA status, in the interest of stability. Please chime in, and if other editors agree that the merge is not a good idea, we should remove the tag so the FA discussion can go forward. Thanks.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, it was suggested in the Hanford Site discussion that this should maybe be renamed to Hanford B-Reactor. That seems like a good idea to me -- thoughts? -Pete (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, there seems rough consensus not to merge, and that makes sense to me too as the B reactor is on the US National Register of Historic Places, which to me implies notability in its own right. So I've removed the merge notice. I couldn't find any discussion of the merge at Talk:Hanford Site, which is where the now-removed merge notice took me. Andrewa (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)