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 |
Does CERN also deal with some networking standards? I assume this dates back to ARPNET. we may want to clarify this.
The line "It also has very impressive computer and wide-area networking facilities which are primarily used for experimental data analysis." baffles me. What, exactly, is the "it" specified in the first sentence? The accelerator complex? Or the CERN organization? Situated at the beginning of a section as this is, one should not use ambiguous pronouns. Evilweevil 13:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have modified the article to clarify this. --Jll 16:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Grid, which AFAIK is being developed mainly at CERN, definitely deserves a section in the article. However, I don't know the inside of the project, so some CERN IT department employee should probably step forward. PS: There is already a Grid computing article.
I'll get to this when i have a moment - i can probably even claim its work!
The article refers to "the main Meyrin site (also known as the West Area)...". This is incorrect. The main Meyrin site includes many buildings and facilities *including* the "West Area". The name "West Area" refers specifically to the experimental halls that receive particle beams from the west extraction zone of the SPS. The main buildings, the computer centre, the PS accelerator (and injectors), the old ISRs and so on are not part of the West Area. -- Ian 11:30, 17 January 2005 (UTC)
The LHC Olympics are in the news a lot - Should a reference go in the article? LHC Olympics --Zegoma beach 21:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone corrected the crane from lifting tonnes to tons, surly a belgium crane would lift metric tonnes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteveTraylen (talk • contribs) 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
User shandris has edited the first paragraph to say that CERN was "formerly" known as "Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire". I think that this is inappropriate for the following reasons:
1. The current organisation known as CERN was never known as the "Conseil". The "Conseil" was a different entity that was responsible for setting up the current organisation in 1952-1954 (see the "CERN Acronym" paragraph).
2. Even if the two were the same entity, it is more than 50 years since it was thus called.
3. The resulting initial sentence becomes quite hard to read.
I propose to revert the change.
Having said this, every few weeks or months someone comes along and decides that the first sentence must be wrong because the acronym does not appear to fit (despite there being clear comments in the HTML). Does anyone have any suggestions ? For example, what if thtere were a link from the first paragraph to the "CERN acronym" paragraph. --62.232.27.82 16:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I recently picked this up from a now defunct site. The webmaster was giving away pages and I snagged this, what I think is the only surviving mirror of the original CERN WorldWideWeb Homepage. Is this not correct? humblefool®Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal 4 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)
Unfortunately the site is down. Does anyone have the page? Or will the archives be lost forever? It's a pity to see the page disappear. Jorophose 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Some (extremist) Christians say that the logo of CERN has a 666 hidden in it. I can see what they are talking about, but I'm sure that is unintentional. Does anyone have any background on the logo? Thanks! DangerousNerd talk contribs email 20:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Sweden, Norway and Yugoslavia are greyed out, but should be blue. 81.93.102.185 14:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking to do a complete re-write of this article, to bring it up to GA/FA status. Currently the article is very disjointed and doesn't flow, and am hopefully getting some other people at CERN to participate. If you're interested (at CERN or not) please let me know. Khukri 09:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any real justification in having this in the article? Aside from the fact that the satire article does not even have a citation; the fact that the worlds largest particle physics lab is mentioned somewhere in an article written by a moderately popular internet writer does not in my opinion add anything of value to the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.19.181 (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe I have to bring this to the talk page, but I've been reverted twice now, by different users.
Am I crazy to think it should be "led" instead of "lead"?
The sentence doesn't seem like part of a present tense styled timeline, which seems like the only excuse.
- Misha
216.254.12.114 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Misha. I see you have changed "lead" to "led" again in the scientific achievements section. This has, as you observe, been reverted twice. I think the problem is one of US vs British spelling and convention. In British english "lead" can also be the past tense and is pronounced like "led". To UK eyes "led to the..." looks odd and (not to put too fine a point on it) American. The rest of the article uses UK/European spelling (centre, metre and so on) and so it is felt that "lead" would be more appropriate here. This is in line with the Wikipedia convention of having each article independantly adopt a consistent style on US/UK spelling.
Thanks. Ian 90.155.77.202 13:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Howdy Ian. I loved your polite and reasoned response to my annoying edits. I'm sure you would know better than I, but I can't find any evidence of this difference in my New Oxford Dictionary of English, or in a Google search. I am very willing to be convinced otherwise. At least one of us is bound to learn something new.
Thank you! Misha 216.254.12.114 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Khukri recently removed this link:
The Potential for Danger in Particle Collider Experiments
While this link may be worthy of deletion, the justification given in the edit summery did not refute or address the specific claims made at the linked page. That page actually took into consideration what Khukri said. I'm not sure that Khukri actually read the page.
– Misha
216.254.12.114 (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I am just writing this here so it doesn't get a revert. There was a short sentence in the article regarding how CERN must acheive triple this (600 mb per second) for it to work properly (the LHC) by 2007. I changed the "triple this" sentence to reflect an actual number, as ther was some minor discussion elsewhere with people wondering if it was triple it in terms of 600^3 or just 600 x 3. So, I checked it out, and it is indeed 1,800MB per second. Check my discussion page to chat about it. Sod Aries 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
"This accelerator will generate vast quantities of computer data, which CERN will stream to laboratories around the world for distributed processing (the GRID technology). In April 2005, a trial successfully streamed 600 MB per second to seven different sites across the world. If all the data generated by the LHC is to be analysed, then scientists must achieve 1,800 MB per second before 2008." ---It now is 2008, can the above quote be updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.90.118 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
' Notice ot all! As of next year, Cern will not be alowing trips to see the particle accelerator as a new experiment is going to be taking place, and no doubtly for a number of years. just to let you no. Geo
I removed the line in the "Fiction" section that said CERN was mentioned in "A Brief History of Time" since:
- The book is not fiction
- CERN is probably mentioned in dozens or hundreds of science related non-fiction books and so a mention in Hawking's book is not notable.
90.202.177.15 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The title of the section called The accelerators of the Future: LHC, should be called something different, as it currently sounds like an advertisement. Calling it The Large Hadron Collider or similar should be fineButtc0 (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to correct a few issues and was reverted by Khukri.
The European Organization for Nuclear Research, commonly known as CERN (French: Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire) is the world's largest particle physics laboratory, situated in the northwest suburbs of Geneva on the border between France and Switzerland.
What are the issues with this change? --Benplowman (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence in the first paragraph needs to be fixed. "Some 7931 scientists and engineers (representing 500 universities and 80 nationalities)." is NOT a complete sentence. I assume that it should say something like "CERN's members include some 7931 scientists and engineers (representing 500 universities and 80 nationalities)." but I'm not sure, since I don't know anything about CERN. Is there somebody who does know and wants to fix it? Superbatfish (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If CERN is the "world's largest particle physics laboratory, situated in the northwest suburbs of Geneva on the Franco-Swiss border", why doesn't the map at the top of the article clearly illustrate where it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.186.10 (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Our article says that European Commission, Russia, and others have observer status but does not say from when: Russia did not exist within CERN lifetime before 1991, and European Commission also did not exist when CERN was founded. One reading the article could assume that these observers have been associated with CERN since its foundation, when in reality they probably became observers sometime in the future. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
CERN and the LHC appear in the BBC radio play, Torchwood: Lost Souls. --68.81.70.65 (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
hasn't there been and isn't there a number of lawsuits to restrict the cerns program? Aren't there any critical views of this prodject that should be included? Did it take much longer then expected and cost much more then predicted? Don't get me wrong I would prefer that every article not have a critical section but that doesn't seem to be the wiki way... I just think it would be nice if this article had a "Concerns" section or something. I do see that there is an article about the LHC with a critical section, so maybe one isn't needed here, even though I believe it is the Cern that is getting sued not the LHC. I a may be confused though. Mantion (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Same as I wrote below, all these issues are covered in the LHC & Safety of the Large Hadron Collider articles Khukri 12:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any mention of the safety fears either, isn't there the slightest chance this thing could cause a mini blackhole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.49.144 (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I really doubt that members have only contributed $1 billion, as the Hadron Collider costed $9 billion dollars. Where does that other $8 billion dollars come from? Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The cost to completion of the LHC (~6 billion euros) is the cost from 1995 (when the project was approved) to ...completion (14 years and counting). Yes, the 20 member countries contributed ~1 billion dollars ONLY in 2008, i.e. only for one year. CERN also receives funding from other sources, including observer status members (e.g. the US's contribution was $531 million in 2008). Snowb100 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Do only the MEMBER STATE governments and their science research agencies fund CERN or do any of the OBSERVER STATES contribute any funding aswell? Is it only funded by Europe and not at all be the US Government? If i understand this right, I would like to put "(not involved in funding of CERN)" after the title of the observers section, but of course the article is locked for the next few months while idiots demand 100% GUARANTEES that all planned experimentation is 100% risk-free, which impossible. (See Risk.) --81.105.242.11 (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
No, CERN does not only receive funding from member states. I don't know the details, but as an example, the US's contribution was $531 million in 2008. Snowb100 (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, Austria just ceased being a member today. The map needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.147.118 (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This article says in the list of particle accelerators at CERN that the LEP will be used to feel the LHC as of 2008, and in the LHC section below, it says the LEP was closed in 2000, and that the PS/PSP accelerators will feed the LHC The correct information should be determined and the wrong information corrected. Emelleebee (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this true? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/lhc_power_failure_again/ Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this event merits its own section, or if it should simply be listed under the Scientific Achievements section of History. Information regarding the beams' collision is available from the Associated Press here: Geneva atom smasher sets collision record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koriyen (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Since CERN is a European organization there is an interest in a clear comparison between the Member States of the CERN and the Member States of the EU in a side by side table showing the funding, and the result should be visualized in a three colored map showing 1 CERN membership, 2 EU membership, 3 Both EU and CERN membership. Similarities has been done in for instance the article about NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) where the EU-NATO map is shown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EU_and_NATO.svg). 83.177.143.118 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this would add substance to the article, and have searched their official website only to have found a focus on history on achievements rather than current and upcoming experiments. It would be good to obtain this with some level of technical detail and depth. Niluop (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I revert this edit which removed the membership maps gallery, until I get a good argument as to why the gallery is injurious or irrelevant to the wiki. Our purpose here in Wikipedia is to serve the reader, and my rationale in adding the gallery was to serve the readers who prefer to browse articles visually: instead of consulting the text list of member states, one could see the gallery and get the same information from there. The animated Gif is not enough because it does not convery the same information: it does not include the years or explanations of the membership changes (Spain left, Spain re-entered, etc). Therefore, deleting the gallery deletes visual information that is not in the animated map. Furthermore, when I added the gallery I put it into a collapsible DIV which means that it had a "show/hide" link on top of it, and everyone who does not like galleries can very easily click the link and hide the gallery from their screen. I want to see what others think about the utility of the gallery... if I see that other people have real reasons to consider the gallery unwanted, it's no problem to reinstate the edit which removed it. NerdyNSK (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The introduction states that CERN is a laboratory, but most of the article refers to CERN as an international organization. Which is it? I doubt even the world's largest particle physics laboratory is actually large enough to have nations as member states. Minaker (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your explanation doesn't change the fact that the introduction is contradictory and confusing, thus making a "contradiction" warning template both appropriate and necessary. First off, if an article is so confusing that it requires a discussion on the talk page to clarify ambiguity, that is not acceptable. Second, your explanation itself isn't clear. I think that you are saying that the term "CERN" can refer to either a particular laboratory named CERN or to the international organization that runs it. If this is the case, then the article, not the talk page, should reflect this, and make it absolutely clear, because at this point, regardless of whatever we decide or say on the talk page, the article still states that CERN is simply a laboratory with member states, which is nonsensical. Minaker (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to make this change myself, because if it was my change, it would be based on information provided by you in this discussion, which is not Wikipedia policy. However, if CERN refers to both a laboratory and to an organization, the intro should read something like this:
"The European Organization for Nuclear Research (French: Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire), known as CERN (see History), pronounced /ˈsɜrn/ (French pronunciation: [sɛʁn]), is an international organization whose purpose is to operate the world's largest particle physics laboratory, which is situated in the Northwest suburbs of Geneva on the Franco–Swiss border (46°14′3″N 6°3′19″E / 46.23417°N 6.05528°E / 46.23417; 6.05528). Established in 1954, the organization has twenty European member states.
The term "CERN" is also used to refer to the laboratory itself, which employs approximately 2,600 full-time employees, as well as some 7,931 scientists and engineers representing 580 universities and research facilities and 80 nationalities."
Note that this clarifies that the term "CERN" refers to both the laboratory and the organization. As I said, I can't really make this change myself, because my only source is this discussion. But a change like this has to be made to clarify an article whose introduction is completely confusing and contradictory. Minaker (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
130.241.18.31 (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi - this trivia is uncited so I moved it from the article , if it has value and is notable please cite and replace - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Firstly please read WP:IPC and my last post in this section relating to the LHC when a similar situation arrived. If editors feel this should be included can they demonstrate the notable link between CERN and a fictional place that isn't CERN but just sounds like CERN? Just because a cartoon uses CERN or a fictionalised version of it as a MacGuffin with a different name doesn't make it inherently notable. Regards Khukri 07:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Israel's status was upgraded to associate member (link). How should this be indicated in the Member states section?—Biosketch (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
israel was accepted as a full member status http://www.jpost.com/Sci-Tech/Article.aspx?id=238491 please put that in--129.98.153.225 (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The two currencies in the financing chart seem to be confusing, it's not clear which currency is actually used for financing. I assume CHF and the EUR value indicates the value at exchange rates somewhen in 2009. But as exchange rates change over time, the budget needs to be in one particular currency, either the EUR or the CHF values would be completely different today. I think there should be an indication which currency values are actual and which are just derived. Makrom (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Does there really need to be six maps showing the members of CERN?
The first one shows all of the current members, the second shows all of the original members, then the third one is the same as the first but in different colours.
The fourth one shows the original members in one colour and the later joiners in another, so it's pretty much an amalgamation of the first two (or second and third) maps.
Then you have an animated map of the members joining, then you have a world map.
You don't need all these maps, it looks stupid, there's more maps than there are pictures of the facility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.84.204 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
...of the Meyrin site
AFAIK the CERN facilities aren't in Geneva, but in other municipalities WhisperToMe (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lead of the current version reads:
Does anybody else find this uncomfortably too similar to the last section of this page of the CERN website (Copyright CERN 2008)?
In addition, that paragraph is not a summary of text in the body of the article, so really needs to be cited (presumably to that page). Is the "full-time" nature of the employees an assumption or citable from another source? --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Sources for a table of member states and their contributions to the CERN budget (a la ESA):
--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 17:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The article says "If all the data generated by the LHC is to be analysed, then scientists must achieve 1,800 MB/s before 2008." Should this obsolete and speculative text just be removed, or does someone have info on how they worked out that kink? Edison (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
From this page on the CERN site: "CERN releases photos under a Creative Commons licence". Perhaps there are adequate photos already in this article, but maybe there are photos useful for other articles. They explicitly mention Wikipedia as something that would benefit.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've read that Israel has been joining CERN.Exx8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC).
Turkey is an Oberver not a member state so it should be listed in the Observer section not in the member list
Turkey to become Associate Member State of CERN | http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2014/05/turkey-become-associate-member-state-cern 78.110.9.244 (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Am I correct that "CERN" is pronounced "surn"? If yes, I think that should be added to the article. -- Felix Wiemann 20:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a conflict regarding the actual name of the organization in this article. The beginning of the article says that CERN is the "European Organization for Nuclear Research," and later in the article it says, "European Center for Nuclear Research." The latter actually makes more sense, since in French, it actually fits the acronym.
I guess it's possible that the CERN people wanted to change it to "Organization," but didn't want to change the acronym to CORN. I will look into this...
As far as I know, CERN is an acronym for Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, that's at least what was told me by the Librarian when I was down there with my Physics class in 2010. Eikabird (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Nonetheless, it would be useful to explain that the original name was "european council for nuclear research" and only later was it changed to "european organization for nuclear research", without changing the acronym. It is explained in their website. Also, too many people think CERN stands for "european centre for nuclear research" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.48.99.174 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The English name is "European Organization for Nuclear Research" [1]. The French name is "l’Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire" [2]. This is official and final. People please stop changing it to council/conseil --92.233.159.36 (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it actually true that "European Organization for Nuclear Research" and/or "Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire" is the official name of this organization? The discussion above cites CERN's "About" page, which says "At CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, physicists and engineers are probing the fundamental structure of the universe." This could be read to mean that the name of the organization is simply "CERN", with "the European Organization for Nuclear Research" being a description rather than the name of the organization. I presume this isn't the case, but it wouldn't be the first time a Wikipedia article has messed up something this obvious. Can someone please confirm (ideally with reference to a reliable source), that "European Organization for Nuclear Research" is actually the official name?--Srleffler (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
--109.13.137.195 (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Romania became an official candidate for accession. "Following a period of study, Romania was formally accepted as a Candidate for Accession to membership of CERN. Romania’s membership will be phased in over a five-year period during which the country’s contributions will ramp up to normal Member State levels in parallel with Romanian participation in CERN projects."[1] 89.36.190.155 (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
From the article: "This Cisco Systems router at CERN was probably one of the first IP routers deployed in Europe"
One of the first, yes. I would say Piet Beertema's router at EUnet/CWI in Amsterdam was earlier by the smallest of margins. 77.228.71.21 (talk) 13:11, 04 July 2013 (UTC)
It is highly undoubted that the works of CERN has provided us with the infamous World Wide Web. Accessing and sharing data has never been easier since the beginning of the internet. The current projects involving the particle colliders are quiet a great work of mankind in trying to understand the sub atomic particle nature of matter. After looking through the article, I asked myself a simple question: what is the significance of doing such research? If anything a section providing information on how such research might benefit mankind and any other technological advancement, would be useful. Sure it might help increase data bit transmission but how will it benefit society in general? And how useful would particle acceleration studies in the near future be? Part of the article to introduce such matters as well as provide external sources to benefits of studying particulate matter might be helpful. Also the article seems not to state the dangers of studying sub atomic particles and collision. Are there any major problems to be worried about? Does it pose any threat to works and the environment like nuclear reactors do? It would be useful if such questions are answered in the scope of the article, or if not, provide external valid sources that look into the benefits, security as well as dangers of studying particle collisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainstein001 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Try this article Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider cheers Khukri 07:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on CERN. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
There are over 10,000 engineers, scientists, and other workers from 113 nations working on this. Which countries have the most amount of people involved in CERN, and what % of the total would they comprise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.199.45 (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
A lot of this talk page is stale and references text that is no longer in the article, and with this being the 50th section, I'm proposing setting up an automated archive, like on Talk:Large_Hadron_Collider. WP:ARCHIVE says to establish a consensus before doing this so, thoughts, anyone? Dukwon (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
((geodata-check))
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
—187.187.199.232 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, there is no encyclopedic relevance on the "Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly" section under "History". The article has only one line about the discovery of Z and W, and four lines about that wrong mesurement. May we remove it? --Giovanni Cerretani (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the hatnote to link to the disambiguation page cern (disambiguation)
change
For the company with the ticker symbol CERN, see Cerner. For the rocket nozzle, see SERN. |
((About||the company with the ticker symbol CERN|Cerner|the rocket nozzle|SERN))
to
((other uses))
For other uses, see cern (disambiguation). |
where SERN uses are link to at sern (disambiguation) as well
-- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
((other uses|Cern (disambiguation)))
) to link to the correct page. CERN (disambiguation) doesn't exist. --mfb (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Stersax (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Confirmed by the official CERN website. Link:
https://home.cern/news/press-release/cern/dr-ursula-bassler-elected-next-president-cern-council
This edit request to CERN has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The name of the country "Macedonia" must be renamed to "North Macedonia", according to the recent international agreements. 130.230.108.119 (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to CERN has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A02:A211:A000:6100:111B:5DFB:785F:F346 (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Add Suriname
This edit request to CERN has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Member states and budget section, add Croatia to the table in the "Associate Members" (ref: https://home.cern/news/news/cern/croatia-becomes-associate-member-cern) Contribution is 250000 CHF as per https://fap-dep.web.cern.ch/rpc/2019-annual-contributions-cern-budget (already cited).
In the Enlargement section add "The agreement was ratified on 10 October 2019 (same reference as above -> https://home.cern/news/news/cern/croatia-becomes-associate-member-cern)
In the International relations sections, remove "Croatia – 18 July 1991" from the "Non-Member States". Random millenial (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to CERN has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Member states and budget section, add Estonia as an "Associate Member in the pre-stage to membership" (ref: https://home.cern/news/news/cern/estonia-becomes-associate-member-cern-pre-stage-membership). They have this status since 1 February 2020. The contribution as of 2021 is 1 million CHF (ref: https://fap-dep.web.cern.ch/rpc/2021-annual-contributions-cern-budget)
In the Enlargement section add "Estonia was approved for admission as an Associate Member in the pre-stage to membership state on 19 June 2020. The agreement was ratified on 1 February 2021."
In the International Relations section, remove "Estonia - 23 April 1996" from the "Non-member States".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpaca95 (talk • contribs) 03:11, February 20, 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to CERN has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Latvia is now a associate state member after an agreement signed the 14th of April 2021: https://home.cern/news/press-release/cern/latvia-join-cern-associate-member-state. Flaburgan (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Currently reference 5. Correct URL is https://www.un.org/en/about-us/intergovernmental-and-other-organizations 77.179.204.73 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)