This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Nope. Neutrino detectors are for studies of neutrino properties (particle physics), while neutrino telescopes are aimed at astronomy. They overlap, but cannot be merged (unless you want to merge all physics experiments into one article…). This article sounds like a stub though, it deserves extension. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, you may consider neutrino telescopes as a subcategory of neutrino detectors. But still, the main aim is different than that of most of other neutrino experiments. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Because of the high level of redundancy between the two articles, I proceeded with the merger. If this article grows too long, the topic can always be split off again in the future.—RJH (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
"A neutrino detector is a device designed to detect neutrinos." Well, a neutrino detector detects neutrinos, by the definitions of the words. It's redundant. So strip it down to "A neutrino detector is a device that is designed." But again, the definition of the word "device" implies that it has been designed.
So information in that sentence is: "A neutrino detector is a device." 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the expertise to mess with this article. But thanks to whoever waded in there. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It isn't very artistic, but it is perfectly true. Besides, defining a term such as a "neutrino detector" without mentioning "neutrino" and "detect" seems like an unnecessary superhuman trick to avoid claiming what's inherently obvious in the construction of the phrase "neutrino detector". Natural science language very often sounds tautological like the current intro, and I think it is the best way, althought the artistic aspects of the article may suffer. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The sentence "These radiochemical detection methods are useful only for counting neutrinos; no neutrino direction or energy information is available." is in the middle of the second paragraph. I think he refer to the complete section and should become a new paragraph.