Talk:Higgs mechanism/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
common name
This page was moved from the common name without discussion. I tried to change the lead back but it was reverted. Care to discuss it now? Bhny (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- The common name for Higgs boson is God particle. I mean: we need to follow the serious official sources and CERN clearly favours Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism (CERN writing guidelines) which is a fair name if you think about it since Higgs is not the only one who came up with it, not even the first one.--Wester (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Bhny has a fair point. As this is an article that has been around for some time, and since it has not had its name changed for some time, it would be fair to assume that others have not considered it obvious. So it would have been appropriate to propose the move first. Secondly, the article will in any even have to be renamed again even if this rename is agreed to: hyphens do not meet the WP standards in this context. "Official sources" are also not the primary deciding factor on WP: use in notable sources is. I suspect the "Higgs mechanism" dominates massively, based on a few Google, Google books and Google scholar searches. Which is to say, it is probably the name of choice in scholarly papers, secondary sources and the like. But I think someone with knowledge of the field should comment. — Quondum 22:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I also suspect that "Higgs mechanism" is by far the most common name, although there's no harm in exploring the issue. In the mean time, this article is incorrectly titled ("Mechanism" instead of "mechanism"), so I've requested a technical move to change this. Zueignung (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Bhny has a fair point. As this is an article that has been around for some time, and since it has not had its name changed for some time, it would be fair to assume that others have not considered it obvious. So it would have been appropriate to propose the move first. Secondly, the article will in any even have to be renamed again even if this rename is agreed to: hyphens do not meet the WP standards in this context. "Official sources" are also not the primary deciding factor on WP: use in notable sources is. I suspect the "Higgs mechanism" dominates massively, based on a few Google, Google books and Google scholar searches. Which is to say, it is probably the name of choice in scholarly papers, secondary sources and the like. But I think someone with knowledge of the field should comment. — Quondum 22:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is absolutely the case that "Brout-Englert-Higgs Mechanism" is the most common name used by physicists today. The title of this article should reflect this. I repeat the arguement used above about naming the quanta a diety particle. Just because some people jump off a bridge, we should not follow. As regards Quondum's comment, indeed in the many existing papers "Higgs" alone is the most common, but this is has changed in current publications due to the recent Nobel prize decision. Moreover, in lecture courses and seminars etc. I've been to this year students are thought about the "Brout-Englert-Higgs Mechanism", as opposed to just "Higg". Note that the field associated to the mechanism is still refered to as the "Higgs Boson" alone (just in case anyone tried to change that article too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.251.85 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think a few redirects are going to push the wikipedia server farm over the edge, are they? :-)
duncanrmi (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Higgs mechanism. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707134940/http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2005-0622-155148/13877.pdf to http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2005-0622-155148/13877.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 13:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)