Template talk:Underground laboratories

	Astronomy Template‑class
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

In this edit, User:Brycehughes removed the strikethrough on the grounds that it is ugly and makes the navbox hard to read. (Much discussion at User_talk:Brycehughes#Template:Underground laboratories.) I think it's a bit ugly, but neatly and compactly expresses "not any more".

Some options that were discussed:

• Use a more legible style than strikethrough to mark the laboratory as closed.
• Combine "closed" and "not open yet" into a single "not operating" category indicated by italics.
• Drop the link to Kolar completely. That has its merits, depending on the purpose of the navbox: is it more a list of laboratories, or of Wikipedia articles?

But basically, this is an aesthetic judgement, not something that can be decided conclusively. I put it in there originally, so obviously I like it that way, but I don't own the template. So additional opinions are solicited. (Since I don't think this template or talk page gets a lot of traffic, a WP:3O request will be submitted.)

I do request that it anyone is inspired to WP:Be bold and make a change, they change the documentation to match. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

The strike is confusing. Since Kolar is no longer an underground laboratory it should not be included on the template. Consider if there may be a need for a list of former underground laboratories. Atsme☯Consult 17:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! I wasn't expecting that to be the preferred option. That wouldn't be a very interesting list, as Kolar is the only underground laboratory of any note that's been closed. (It's actually barely a laboratory, but was what passed for one in its day.) I'll allow a few more days for others to chime in, then make the edit. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, User:Brycehughes simplified "LSM/Fréjus" to just "LSM". (The first half used to be a red link, but Brycehughes recently created a Modane Underground Laboratory article.) I went and changed it back to LSM/Fréjus. There was a lot of discussion.

I'm really torn. Arguments for including Fréjus:

• The lab is also very commonly referred to as "Fréjus underground laboratory" or "Frejus" for short, even on official web sites. Per WP:OFFICIAL, WP uses the most common name(s), even if they're not the official ones.
• That usage appears to be ongoing, not just historical.
  • This is unlike the names "DUSEL" and "Homestake"; current usage is clearly shifting to SURF.
• There's no obvious connection between the names "LSM" and "Fréjus".
  • Although LNGS is commonly referred to as "Gran Sasso", there's less need for an alternate listing because of "GS" in the initialism and "Gran Sasso" in the mouseover text.
• "/Fréjus" is pretty short, so it doesn't take a huge benefit to keep the cost/benefit ratio good.

Arguments for using "LSM" only:

• A navbox is space constrained.
• For consistency: give each lab one name.
• It is the official name, and also commonly used.
• As User:Brycehughes pointed out, the box also includes flags; someone looking for "Fréjus" would probably think to try the only lab in France.

That last point is a good one, and has me hanging in the balance. Other opinions are very much requested! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

The argument for retaining Fréjus is convincing. Retain LSM/Fréjus Atsme☯Consult 17:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is the current situation, so no action is required. If anyone else would like to chime in on the subject, it's not permanently closed. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it in the article for Kimballton, Virginia and it has a web site: http://www.phys.vt.edu/~kimballton/. Apparently it has 1450 mwe shielding. It's located in a working limestone mine, which leaves nice clean dry chambers behind, and has drive-in access. The facility was very cheap ($200K); it mostly consisted of installing a dust-proof building inside some pre-existing open space.

But it doesn't have an article yet. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the spirit of WP:Be Bold, I added it. It's currently named "Kimballton"; "KURF" is another alternative. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]