Talk:Large Hadron Collider: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:14, 18 September 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Large Hadron Collider article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 4 months

Template:Vital article

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Large Hadron Collider. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Large Hadron Collider at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 10, 2011, September 10, 2012, September 10, 2014, September 10, 2016, and September 10, 2018.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics B‑class High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Europe B‑class Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Switzerland B‑class Low‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Large Hadron Collider article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 4 months

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Large Hadron Collider. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://askanexpert.web.cern.ch/AskAnExpert/en/Accelerators/LHCgeneral-en.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_54/iss_12/21_2.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502010242/http://natgeotv.com.au/tv/world%27s-toughest-fixes/episode.aspx?id=100 to http://natgeotv.com.au/tv/world%27s-toughest-fixes/episode.aspx?id=100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found a new link for the broken one. --mfb (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why the word ever is inappropriate

Hi @JFG:,

I'm not disputing that's it true, I'm saying it's unnecessary hyperbolic and inappropriate to use the word "ever" on Wikipedia.

While it looks like there's no difference in meaning in between "The Large Hadron Collider is the world's largest and most powerful particle collider, the most complex experimental facility built and the largest single machine in the world" and "The Large Hadron Collider is the world's largest and most powerful particle collider, the most complex experimental facility ever built and the largest single machine in the world", the word "ever" does not mean "up until now".

"Ever" is "always", "continuously", "at all times" (sources dictionary.com, Collins, Merriam-Webster). Stating that it is the largest building ever - "always" - is hyperbolic and crystal balling. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your arguments, and I'm generally not in favor of WP:PUFFERY. When an actual artifact is truly exceptional and "greatest ever" by some objective measure, such as the LHC, the ISS or the Burj Khalifa, some highlighting is deserved and properly encyclopedic. Also, the expression "ever built" flows better than just "built". — JFG ^talk 15:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JFG:, thanks for your understanding. What about "largest building in recorded history" or "up until now" (assuming there aren't any other larger man-made superstructures underway)? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence under consideration is "the most complex experimental facility ever built", not "the largest building". I honestly think that adding "in recorded history" or "up until now" is unnecessary; "ever" does the job quite well. But I'd love to hear comments from other editors. — JFG ^talk 15:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think "ever" is fine. It is clear that there might be a more complex one in the future, and we would know of more complex ones in the past. --mfb (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Most complex experimental facility" not mentioned in reference

When I read "most complex experimental facility ever built" I immediately thought of the ISS and was curious to see the reference supporting this statement. I found that the reference does not make this claim. Moreover, this reference is from CERN, the builder and operator of LHC itself, so it's probably not an appropriate source for such claims. Personally, I do not doubt that LHC is the "world's largest and most powerful particle collider" or the "largest single machine in the world", but I think "most complex" would be difficult to prove. What do you think about removing the "most complex" verbiage? --SureJohn (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No responses so I went ahead and removed it for now. SureJohn (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:03, 11 September 2018 edit AnomieBOT (talk \| contribs) Bots 6,528,672 edits Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2018-09-10. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:14, 18 September 2018 edit undo SureJohn (talk \| contribs) 96 edits →"Most complex experimental facility" not mentioned in reference Next edit →
Line 58:		Line 58:

	When I read "most complex experimental facility ever built" I immediately thought of the ISS and was curious to see the reference supporting this statement. I found that [https://home.cern/topics/large-hadron-collider the reference] does not make this claim. Moreover, this reference is from CERN, the builder and operator of LHC itself, so it's probably not an appropriate source for such claims. Personally, I do not doubt that LHC is the "world's largest and most powerful particle collider" or the "largest single machine in the world", but I think "most complex" would be difficult to prove. What do you think about removing the "most complex" verbiage? --[[User:SureJohn\|SureJohn]] ([[User talk:SureJohn\|talk]]) 16:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)		When I read "most complex experimental facility ever built" I immediately thought of the ISS and was curious to see the reference supporting this statement. I found that [https://home.cern/topics/large-hadron-collider the reference] does not make this claim. Moreover, this reference is from CERN, the builder and operator of LHC itself, so it's probably not an appropriate source for such claims. Personally, I do not doubt that LHC is the "world's largest and most powerful particle collider" or the "largest single machine in the world", but I think "most complex" would be difficult to prove. What do you think about removing the "most complex" verbiage? --[[User:SureJohn\|SureJohn]] ([[User talk:SureJohn\|talk]]) 16:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
			:No responses so I went ahead and removed it for now. [[User:SureJohn\|SureJohn]] ([[User talk:SureJohn\|talk]]) 23:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)