The contents of the .cern page were merged into CERN on 18 June 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CERN article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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
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
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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am sceptical to merge these pages. If we follow that logic .no should be merged with Norway. In many aspects CERN is nearly like a country.
Bibliophilen (talk)
Great Idea! You should move it, this page is so small and can easily fit on the main CERN page. Also make sure that this is mentioned on the page about top-level domains. Nrl103 (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are several hundred pages on TLDs; and they all are short. That's the nature of these subjects. Why should we merge this one, but not all the others? It is absolutely OK to have a short article, if there is not much more to say about this subject. There is nothing wrong with a short article. I'm against merge. Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shortness alone would be fine, but .cern (and many other .tld pages) fail WP:NOTABILITY, and by policy should be deleted or merged. (IMHO none of the information on it need be salvaged; "when did an organization register its current domain" is usually trivia, whether tld or no). There are literally over a thousand tld's; I know of no notability exemption for tld's. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose to merge the both articles as country level TLD's have different aspect while organizational level TLD's have different aspect. As well CERN is not a country, though it is a member based organizations still it remains an organization only so it clearly shows not to be merged.
Oppose To me merging the two articles is bacically trying to mix apple and pears. TLDs commonly have their own article. If .cern is to go, there will be no logic if .nato remains. From the discussion it seems like most contributors agree with me. Bibliophilen (talk)
Support merge for the reasons of short text and context. Categorization can be maintained with categories on the redirected page, and section redirects ensure that readers will be directed to the most relevant material. Klbrain (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Klbrain:
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverageinreliable sources that are independent of the subject. If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. — WP:GNG
If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it [or] if a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" (unspecified) amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into a page on a broader topic. — WP:MERGEREASON
Is there any policy, guideline or other rule I'm not aware of that so many editors insist on all TLDs having their own article, no matter how tiny? --89.206.112.10 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't see explict mention of one of the most important scientific achievements to come out of CERN: the precision measurement of the Z lineshape. There's an indirect mention: the 1989 publications on the number of light neutrino species based on the first few Z events collected in 1989. However, there are two main reasons why that isn't quite the same. First, orders of magnitude more data were collected (with much better precision) from 1990 to 1995; in fact, the 1989 data were not even used in the final lineshape measurement. And second, the Z lineshape does more than give the number of light neutrinos: it constrains the Higgs boson mass, provides several precision measurments of the Standard Model (e.g., lepton universality, unitarity of the neutrino mixing matrix, etc.), and constrains parameters of Supersymmetry and other beyond-the-Standard-Model theories.
So, I thought I'd add it. However, it's hard to assign a date to the lineshape measurement. The bulk of the data used for the measurement was collected from 1990 to 1995 when LEP ran at the Z pole, and several preliminary results were published in the mid-1990s. However, the LEP electroweak working group continuously refined the systematics and didn't publish their final result until 2005 (after incorporating data from SLAC). So in the absence of any other ideas, I'll put down 1995-2005 as the date of the measurement. But if anyone has other opinions, feel free to change it. Gdlong (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the aftermath of the Second World War, European research in physics was almost non-existent, whereas it had been at the height of its glory a few years earlier. It was under these conditions that the Frenchman Louis de Broglie, Nobel Prize in Physics in 1929, launched the idea, at the European Conference on Culture held in Lausanne in 1949, to create a European scientific laboratory.
In 1952, with the support of UNESCO, which promotes the creation of regional scientific laboratories, eleven European governments decide to create a European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN). It is during a meeting in Amsterdam that the site where the CERN facilities will be located is chosen: it will be in Switzerland, in the municipality of Meyrin, located against the Franco-Swiss border, near Geneva. Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange. Contemporary video footage clearly shows a『Centre Européen pour la Recherche Nucléair』sign when the construction works began. Then, at the time of laying the foundation stone by Felix Bloch, it was called as European Institute for Nuclear Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogurt (talk • contribs) 09:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Computer science" section says about the World Wide Web, "It became the dominate way through which most users interact with the Internet." As far as I know, even "British English Oxford spelling" doesn't replace "dominant" (the adjective) with "dominate" (the verb). This is admittedly a trivial error, but one that I've encountered often enough that it annoys me every time. 173.61.40.240 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
