Template:Did you know nominations/Meson bomb
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Jolly Ω Janner 05:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Meson bomb[edit]
... that during Cold War, American intelligence tricked Soviet nuclear researchers into working on the fictional meson bomb?
- Reviewed: Maha Upanishad
- Comment: I wonder if the word fictional is best; feel free to propose an alt hook if you can think of a better wording. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 21:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC).
- How about "impossible", or maybe "non-existent"? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I considered them both, but they don't convey the exact meaning. Impossible is too strong a word, I feel, and non-existent doesn't mean pointless. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- "Non-feasible"?Georgejdorner (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Imaginary? deceptive? hypothetical? made-up? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think made-up is the winnder here, than you Sarah. So here's ALT1. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that during Cold War, American intelligence tricked Soviet nuclear researchers into working on the made-up meson bomb?
Full review needed now that hook is set. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
New and long enough, QPQ done, within policy, Earwig shows no copyvios. "Made-up" isn't the right word either, since it sounds like meson bombs were the subject of legitimate research before they were rejected. The sources don't seem to say why it was rejected (was it found to be impractical to construct? physically impossible? estimate of the liberated energy was too low for it to be useful?), which would be nice to know and would help in making a hook. I'd approve something like "whose concept the scientific community had already rejected" though. "Nonsensical" might also work, since that's the exact word used in the source. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Antony-22: Ok, so how about: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that during the Cold War, American intelligence tricked Soviet nuclear researchers into working on a nonsensical meson bomb?
- ALT3 ... that during the Cold War, American intelligence tricked Soviet nuclear researchers into working on a meson bomb, whose concept the American scientific community had already rejected?
