Jump to content

Talk:Westinghouse Atom Smasher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BattyBot (talk | contribs) at 14:23, 15 November 2015 (Added {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, talk page general fixes & other cleanup per WP:TPL using AWB (11749)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Better name?

I'm pretty sure the official name for this facility was not "Westinghouse Atom Smasher". I suggest this page be moved to a more appropriate name. If we can't find the official name, something like Westinghouse 1937 Van de Graaff accelerator might be more specific and informative. --ChetvornoTALK 22:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural". Take a look at all the sources, Westinghouse Atom Smasher is the most prevalent and recognizable name for this object, so it should remain where it is. --GrapedApe (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to agree with you. Normally if an accelerator is notable it is commonly referred to by its name; nobody calls the Large Hadron Collider the "Geneva Atom Smasher". But I can't find much reference to the Westinghouse machine in technical literature. Its useful life was short; it was apparently obsolete soon after it was completed. And there is some speculation that it was just built for PR purposes, as a prestige item to attract scientific talent to Westinghouse. I guess its most notable role was as a Pittsburgh-area landmark, and the Landmark Commission calls it the "Westinhouse Atom Smasher", so Westinghouse Atom Smasher it is. --ChetvornoTALK 15:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting--are you aware of any references that may have been built mostly for PR purposes? That would be worth adding.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette op-ed piece. Looks like the only hard evidence were some quotes from the WH board that the machine's high cost was justified "to obtain good publicity value". --ChetvornoTALK 09:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]