The trivia question today at Caribou coffee was “What is a Higgs boson?” One of the choices is that it is a subatomic particle. That was my answer. But I don’t think a Higgs boson is a subatomic particle. Isn’t it a theoretical elementary particle force particle? Is the term subatomic being just incorrectly here?
What were the other choices?
A geological era
A Czech chesse
A naval officer
Yes – presuming it does exist.
The Waldegrave Winners’ essays
(Explanation of the second link: “In 1993, the UK Science Minister, William Waldegrave, challenged physicists to produce an answer that would fit on one page to the question ‘What is the Higgs boson, and why do we want to find it?’” So you have five answers by competent professional physicists written for the general public.)
Although I suppose the bo’s’un aboard HMS Higgs would qualify! 
Not to be confused with the Bigon particle.
Depends on your definition of “subatomic”. Certainly, the Higgs isn’t made of atoms, and it wouldn’t be unreasonable to call something not made of atoms “subatomic”. On the other hand, atoms also aren’t made out of it. And, in fact, the Higgs particle (if it exists, which it had darned well better) is much more massive than any atom. So in that sense, maybe “subatomic” isn’t the best term.
In actual practice, though, the first definition (not made of atoms) seems to be most prevalent (despite the mass), so I’d say that yes, it’s a subatomic particle. Certainly, it’s more a subatomic particle than it is a geological naval cheese.
Pity. I’d quite like to be able to be able to buy Higgs boson cheese in my local supermarket.
As I was about to continue until I hit “Submit” too soon… I imagine the Higgs boson cheese might be next to this cheese on the supermarket shelf.
Quark cheese- made with real quarks! 
Oh the bigon exists, it’s just massless and carries no conserved charges, so nothing else interacts with it.
Basically, the rest of the universe just wants to let bigons be bigons.