Talk:Tau neutrino

Second neutrino

I don't see why the page refers to "the second of the three neutrinos" rather than the third. Hunter (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it's a leftover from the muon neutrino article I used as the basic for this one. I've fixed it. (BTW, if you see mistakes like this, feel free to be bold and fix it yourself). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out too. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

"Tauon Neutrino"?!?!? Are there physicists who call it "tauon neutrinos"?! I'm pretty sure it's called the "tau neutrino". I need to find out how to rename the article... TriTertButoxy (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is obvious and does not need to be referenced in the article... Icalanise (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tauon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 16:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tauon dispute

Hey Icalanise! Please don't be an asshole - you can't expect a reference on that short a notice. And you, Headbomb, I've seen many of your edits so I know you're awesome - you should know better than to get into an edit war.

Let's try to keep things civilized and start a discussion here. I think there are three options that we need to choose between:

"Tauon neutrino" is a common enough term not to require a reference; we can leave the page as is.
"Tauon neutrino" is not a common term, but it is used; we should add a reference.
"Tauon neutrino" is not a valid term.

From what I understand, Headbomb supports #1, and Icalanise originally supported #2 but now supports #3. Correct me if I'm wrong. I myself support #1, but I am no expert on the subject, so I wouldn't count my vote as significant. — SkyLined (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I support #2 but I also support removal of unreferenced content. Note that Headbomb was unwilling to put a reference in the article and just deleted the request tag, furthermore he did this from the start, even before I had posted my reservations about Eric Weisstein's World of Physics. Bear in mind that the WP:BURDEN is on the person who puts the material into the article, thus it is not my responsibility as the person who WP:CHALLENGEs it to find the references, and deleting the citation needing tag without providing a reference in the article is just hiding the issue. I don't think it is unreasonable to require references for terminology especially when none of the existing references use it, and deleting a citation needed tag is not providing a reference. Admittedly my deletion of the term "tauon neutrino" was being an asshole, it is something Wikipedia tends to bring out in me so I am pretty much done with this site now. Icalanise (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference to newly discovered Higgs Boson

I removed the text naming this as "one of the newest" particles to be discovered along with the Higgs boson, reverting it back to being "the newest", since the Higgs boson has not yet actually been discovered. A new boson has probably been discovered. So far it is consistent with what they expect the properties of the Higgs boson to be, but there is a lot more work before what has been seen can be definitely called the Higgs boson. In fact the data collected so far are also consistent with the possibility of more than one new boson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfitzner (talk • contribs) 20:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faster than light

Should it be mentioned that a Tau Neutrino was famously reported erroneously by CERN to have moved faster than light? 92.28.23.123 (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]