Template talk:WMD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iraq has been proven to not possess nuclear weapons / "weapons of mass destruction" in this sense - should not be on this list. Somebody edit it to make it normal again haha

-Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.86 (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting your edit for three reasons, one, you broke a lot of formatting by throwing it to the left side. Two, this will conflict with existing see also / related changes sections in articles. Three, let's talk about it first. ;)

-~-Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:46, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Jiang is correct that this is technically not a series, since the articles are only loosely connected. However, if you do want to format it as a series, the box should at least be in the top right corner of the respective article, not at the bottom right (e.g. American Civil War).--Eloquence* 23:46, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I looked over the series page and didn't notice that... any tips on format, or is it all there? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:53, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
The format seems to be OK, it's just the placement that's wrong.--Eloquence* 00:03, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

This is not a series and should therefore not be made one. IF you insist on keeping this, then at least make it into a footer. This, being placed at the bottom in vertical format, created extra white space on the left side of the page due to vertical expansion. But how is this different from an ordinary "see also" list? --Jiang 00:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the "top" of a series was supposed to be an overview. I'm in the process of creating such an overview page that would be appropriate to such a series. I have no preference as to a sidebar or a footer, I just stole the code from an existing "series" article. Votes on whether footer or sidebar is better? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:26, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Taiwan

Taiwan's government makes large weapons purchases from the United States and there is an article about its weapons program, including discussion of the PRC's assertion that it would invade if it thought Taiwan were developing or trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Whatever one's opinions about its legal status, one must admit that people in Taiwan claiming to be its government are buying large quantities of weapons under their own auspices, not those of the People's Liberation Army. It would be rather silly to change the article about that phenomenon (Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction) to "Taiwan (part of China) and weapons of mass destruction," wouldn't it? Yes, it would -- and it looks silly on the template, so I'm changing it back. --Jpbrenna 03:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explosives

As of 2005, the Dept of Homeland Security is adding explosives to the Weapons of Mass Destruction curriculum that is being taught to emergency personnel. I added it to this list. If something else makes a better link (I couldn't find anything in the explosives article that dealth with weapons), please change it. But the category is now considered a type of WMD. Rt66lt 01:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

daniel is the best person in the world

[edit] Italy should be added

After all, Italy used poison gas against Ethiopia in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. A2Kafir 00:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But it is now a red broken link to Italy and weapons of mass destruction. I suggest Italy be deleted if no-one creates the article soon. Rwendland 16:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PRC and ROC

I think that People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) should be kept simply as "China (PRC)" and "Taiwan (ROC)" on this list. These are by far correlate with what English-speaking readers will recognize in an abbreviated form, and take up a lot less room that "People's Rep. of China" and "Rep. of China (Taiwan)". The latter approach doesn't seem to clarify anything to me and takes up a lot more horizontal room, making an already-big template even bigger. Just my two cents. --Fastfission 01:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear weapons

I removed the "nuclear weaponry" subsection, and created a separate template based on it ({{nuclear weapons}}). The reasoning was thus: not all WMDs are nuclear, of course, and there's no need to have a link to "nuclear weapons design" and other nuclear-specific articles from most of the WMD articles. Those that could use such links can use the new template. Simple as that, and makes the WMD template a much more manageable size. --Fastfission 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Korea listed?

Like...why should it be on that list.

I should think the answer to this should be fairly obvious. You might have to try being a little more articulate if you want to suggest that it shouldn't be listed on this list. --Fastfission 18:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I take it the first poster isn't aware that South Korea did have multiple secret nuclear weapon development programs with the most recent one being 1992. All of them were small scale projects due to lack and strict international control of nuclear materials. --Revth 06:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libya and Egypt

Both have chemical weapons to my knowledge, should they be added? raptor 09:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Adde Ukraine to the list they inherited lots of Nukes from Russia after the break up of the Soviet Union.OmegaGreg 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)OmegaGreg

If you create articles for Libya and weapons of mass destruction, Egypt and weapons of mass destruction, and Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction, then we can add them to the list. The template organizes articles which already exist, it does not point to articles which could exist. --Fastfission 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

becuse its the gayest place in the world

[edit] United Kingdom/UK

I've changed "United Kingdom" to "U.K.", because "United Kingdom" is a long word and disrupts the flow of the box. Battle Ape 09:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran

Iran should not be on this list as there is no evidence that it is pursuing weapons of mass destruction; the country's nuclear program is designed to generate electricity for civilian use. Airwalk451 18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

All countries with "<country> and WMDs" articles should be listed here. Being included here does not indicate that one does or does not have WMDs, it is just a convenient place to find other WMD-country articles. Germany for example has no current WMDs at all, neither does Argentina or South Africa, etc. Iran at the very least has been accused of developing WMDs at the present, and so it certainly belongs here. --Fastfission 14:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should Malta be on the list?

Today, and IP added Malta to the list. Does it actually have WMDs that it is able to launch independently? Since WP does not have an entry to Malta's WMDs, should it be on this template? Count de Chagny 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen any evidence of a Maltese WMD program. I'd take it down. CP Guy, 19 July

[edit] Switzerland

Switzerland should be in the list. It is well documented that a nuclear weapons program was running during the cold war until it became public knowledge and outcry called for it to stop. [1]

[edit] Bulgaria

Bulgaria should be added. It had chemical and biological weapon arsenals, as well as many types of missiles with range of up to 6000 km. Tangra680 09:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thermobaric weapons

considering that Russia has just demonstrated the "dad of all bombs", should thermobaric bombs be added to Weapons of Mass Destruction?(discuss here)--190.74.124.4 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No. They're just big conventional bombs. They aren't really comparable to nuclear weapons except the tiniest types. They are WMDs by any definition. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CUBA

Does cuba by anyhow posses technology that can make Nuclear Weapons? or maybe HAD in the past? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homan05 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No and no. --Fastfission (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)