Talk:Large Hadron Collider reaches milestone

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Review of revision 987264 [Failed][edit]

Review of revision 987287 [Failed][edit]


As an april fools joke? I personally think its pretty cleaver. It does not contain any false hoods, well still being humorous. Bawolff 00:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The entire English Wikipedia main page (which receives millions of hits every day) is made up completely of April 1 spoofs today. We can't have one light-hearted article?! –Juliancolton | Talk 00:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[edit conflict]I'd like to flag this for more opinions. Well I do agree in ordinary circumstances this would not be publishable, I think this is a perfectly acceptable, as well as tasteful april fools joke. Bawolff 00:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[multiple edit conflicts]Is it an AFJ? However, votes on whether to carry AFJs have always failed. No matter how clever, they always seem to undermine our credibility. --SVTCobra 01:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's not a joke. It's a harmless spoof. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am out ... good night ... you all sort it out. Cheers and happy April 1. --SVTCobra 01:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree with SVTCobra here. Sure, it's funny, but I ultimately don't think this helps our credibility or makes us look particularly professional. Especially "the project has not caused mass destruction". The event itself is newsworthy, but not the way it's presented. It's not our business to do "spoofs" either. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I tone it down, will you withdraw your objections? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about now? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Somewhat better, yes ... although I'm not sure I like the joke itself to be published, even if it is April Fools ... And I agree with SVTCobra in that it focusses more on the trivia (mosquito aspect) than the actual event. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review of revision 987346 [Passed][edit]


I really do think that this comparison is unacceptable for an article. I know it’s satirical and factual; however, it makes an important experiment sound stupid. Also, it really doesn’t explain much about the collision. It talks mostly about mosquitoes. Please consider changing this. Azcolvin429 (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, an official site makes the same comparison. As do countless other sources. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this a Joke? Today is Aprils Fools Day xD -- (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess it is ok, but a scientific subject shouldn’t be taken so dispassionately. Too many people already have misconceptions about science and news sources take advantage of this by using silly phrases and joke-like terminology. It is a real shame because it makes these fields—particle physics, cosmology, etc.—look like a big joke to the ill-informed. Believe me, I know plenty of people who think science like this is a government handout and is mostly speculative and untested. Azcolvin429 (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, well, I certainly don't mean to belittle the experiment, and I hope the article doesn't come across as such. It was meant with good intentions—to provide a bit of amusement on a very real and exciting topic. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm actually starting to feel that we might have sacrificed quite a bit of professionalism here. Maybe we should write another article related to this, perhaps an in-depth piece? Benny the mascot (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt it. Among the other websites conducting spoofs or jokes today are the English Wikipedia, Google, and Kodak. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Just because other people are doing it" is no reason for us to do it as well. All those sites are all respected and can afford a joke, we have our professionalism and credibility to maintain, even if it is april fools. This is sorta borderline, it is all factually correct, but I'm still uncomfortable with the way it was presented. Call me a bore, but I dislike April Fools jokes as a general rule. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And, when Wikinews has the weight and respectability generally attributed to such sources, we can afford to do our own jokey stuff; following the Wikipedia principle that it must all be true. Cringeworthy units of measure are not remotely clever - although it always amuses me to demo Google Calc by asking "speed of light in furlongs per fortnight". --Brian McNeil / talk 16:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article says 14 mosquitoes are equal to 14 TeV. This is correct, however; the machine is designed for 7 TeV as per previous edit. See: I am not sure where the 14 even came from, but maybe I am confused? Azcolvin429 (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The BBC says it'll shoot for 14 TeV after a hiatus for some updates. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bad attempt at "pop science"[edit]

This is a piss-poor attempt at a popular science article. Mosquitoes? Gimmie a break. The hard science is being ridiculed by this comparison - was it sourced to some trash owned by Murdoch?

Oh, and yes, this belongs right here on the talk page because it is a criticism of the article. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yes, I've now read the above criticisms. I tend to still agree with them, it looks like Wikinews is trying to be smart, and put down the people working on the LHC. That they may have made the comparison, is a reasonable joke among scientists who see the immediate link. To use the comparison you're going to have to be a really good writer to get past Joe Public thinking mosquitoes have no force; you barely did so with me, and I actually have a reasonably good understanding of science. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I might make a suggestion...instead of saying that they produced 7 TeV in a space a million million times smaller than a mosquito, why not turn it around? What would producing 7 million million TeV in the volume of a mosquito do?

Also, in the last paragraph, say they intend to do a 14 TeV test with the 'fourteen mosquitos' in brackets. Maybe that'll put readers in the right frame of mind.

That would be interesting, but sadly I doubt such information is available in any reliable sources. As for the 14 mosquitoes bit, I just removed it; it really serves no purpose. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad to see I'm not the only "bore" here. Smile.png It really is just unprofessional. Having read it over a bit it does seem a bit "put down" on the science, and focusses waaaay to much on the trivia aspect (imo, comparison to mosquitoes could have been made in a small note somewhere at the end of the story, but certainly not in lead or title). We wouldn't publish this on any other day; I don't see why we have to make exceptions in our professionalism just for today. (Side note, please remember that numbers twenty or less should almost always be spelled out per WN:SG; I've now fixed this.) Tempodivalse [talk] 14:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a few hours...[edit]

...when April 1 UTC is over, I plan to renovate this article and make it a legitimate piece. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, sounds good. Saves me from nominating this at WN:DR, which I was really very tempted to do ... Tempodivalse [talk] 17:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done a tad early. Hope this is acceptable now. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:-D --Diego Grez let's talk 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]