This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
will anyone help me with the common blade elements segment? It will not list like I need it. if you look at the edit page you will see the element, than under it you will see a dot and a description. But in the published article they are both on the same line. I need help! Abc123456person ( talk) 19:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Who was editing while I was editing! Abc123456person ( talk) 23:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh wait never mind. Abc123456person ( talk) 13:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Woohoo!!! It has listed correctly! It turns out that this character • makes it impossible to list in the right manner. But these characters :* do make it possible plus I have added links so if you feel the need for science click a link. Abc123456person ( talk) 03:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
can someone help me with the description for a lot of the steels IE the MOV steels that say things like "no description available" or "we currently know nothing about this steel"? thank you! 166.147.64.249 ( talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Daido DSRxx steels exist in knife steel composition chart( http://zknives.com/knives/steels/steelchart.php), with either direct description or descriptions of their equivalents in other standards. DSR1K6 and DSR1K6M are two difference alloys, and their respective compositions are also in the steel chart. ZviJ —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC).
This so called article is an absolute joke. Was this written by children or mentally disabled adults? Some combination? I'd like to nominate this disgrace for deletion once I review the processes and procedures for that. Just thought I'd give a fair warning or maybe encourage someone to severely clean this thing up. This article contains vastly more literal nonsense than it does it does actual information. I'd guess probably 90% of the citations are totally invalid, if not more.
Edc.bros.are.idiots (
talk)
06:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Some bulleted items end in punctuation while others do not. Generally, list items should be parallel in structure. Another structural issue is most steels are followed by a comma and a single dependent clause, but some have two. Is there a reason these have two and aren't separated into another sentence, as the other bulleted items do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 ( talk) 21:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
These all need to either be cited, or, more likely, removed. The whole page should probably be redone to emphasize composition, as right now it is riddled with generalizations of how widespread each steel is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 ( talk) 16:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, a complete reversion is wrong. I'll take out the citations and leave the rest, since it makes no sense how it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 ( talk) 19:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Finally, the citation at the end is not sufficient, as the preceding sentences, wherever I put the citation needed tag, are unfounded and, in fact, mostly not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 ( talk) 19:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I still don't understand the order listed of the steels, though. Is there some structure I am missing? If not, wouldn't alphabetical order help the reader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 ( talk) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that stainless steel was the most commonly used steel in knives. But I believe your (Mike) edit, as you are more knowledgeable on the subject. I was debating on whether or not I should add other steels that are less commonly used then the majority of the list? Also should we remove the non-proprietary metals from the Spyderco article? Halofanatic333 ( talk) 14:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Blade steel →
List of blade materials —
Good work, everyone. I'd sugest rewriting more of this in paragraph style, with the possibility of forming a separate "
List of Blade steels". If you have print sources to back up some refs that will help too:Blade, Knives Illustrated, etc.--
Mike -
Μολὼν λαβέ
14:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment I almost forgot about this page. I think before anything else takes place, the content box should be moved to the left. Also the top, in my opinion, is a lot to swallow, and Steel Terms should be its own article rather than a part of was meant to be a quasi-list of various steels and materials used in blades. I just realized, it should be renamed blade materials if we continue to list non-steels (like obsidian or ceramic).
Halofanatic333 (
talk)
12:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
There are two sections of info on crucible industries CPM series. These should be consolidated into one. The Japanese VG steel section has "san mai" listed. This is a construction style, not a steel type. San mai of VG1 is listed, but vg10 san mai isn't, and it is probably the most common san mai in high end kitchen knives. VGMax is proprietary to shun. VG13 is used by high end kitchen knife makers including chroma cnives and is not listed
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.167.132.245 ( talk) 23:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Split "Steel Terms" → Steel terminology — As this is a list of materials, the steel terms section should be its own article. It is a lot to swallow, and has little to do with the actual list. There should be a basic section, but it should be trimmed down, with a link to an article solely about steel terms. Halofanatic333 ( talk) 12:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Whats the verdict? Halofanatic333 ( talk) 12:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay so maybe we should rename the article?-- Abc123456person ( talk) 23:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to have the "terminology" section. It's totally against the style of Wikipedia. No other (good) article has such a section - you don't need to split it out like that. Instead, on the first natural use of the term, you should link to the article containing the information. There are plenty of examples of pages dealing with complex subjects which don't have a section for terminology.
87.75.141.237 (
talk)
13:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure who wanted to discuss the subject. Anyway, I've added reference to H1 steel data hosted in the steel database. Notes attached to the composition include Sal Glesser's information regarding Spyderco Q-Fog testing of the H1 steel and it is clear the steel is rust-proof, not just resistant. Also, high chromium alone doesn't define steel stain resistance properties. E.g. ZDP-189 having 20% Chromium is a lot more prone to corrosion than many other steels with considerably lower Chromium in it. ZviJ
When adding external links, please make distinction between standard specifications from various countries and proprietary versions for a given alloy. They are not the same. E.g. A2 currently is linked to Bohler-Uddeholm's product sheet for their A2 conforming steel, but there is a big difference between standard spec and specific maker's implementation of it. Maker can add/remove a few elements, not specify others, and still list the alloy as confirming or roughly equivalent of the said standard spec.
All external links for standard names linked to Bohler's site should be revised and replaced with references to ASTM(AISI, SAE) standard specs. There is no reason to have one foreign maker's specific alloy listed as a replacement for an official US alloy standard spec, or have US maker's proprietary alloy replace DIN or GB standard alloy spec. Knife steel composition chart( http://zknives.com/knives/steels/steelchart.php) has standard specifications and cross reference information to corresponding standards from other countries. Efunda also has the same information, but crossference data isn't as complete, plus you can only view few pages a day in a free mode. Matweb is completely free, but crossreference info is scarce. ZviJ —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC).
i am here. you wanted to speak with me zvij? Abc123456person ( talk) 05:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Zvij? Abc123456person ( talk) 04:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
ZVIJ? hello? Abc123456person ( talk) 22:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The external links scattered throughout the list, such as PDF links, have to go. Wikipedia only permits external links in the references and external links sections. There may be no external links in the list proper. Yworo ( talk) 01:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the worst example I've seen yet of enthusiasts writing wikipedia. Its barely more than a list of materials, many of which dont even have the attempt of some sort of blade making note added, even an unsubstantiated one. Who is the "We" being referred to frequently? Let me guess, blade making forum members? If this were to be a useful article, the materials would be presented in a table with quantitative values describing toughness, hardness, and so on, with only blade or knife making relevant notes and sources listed. Materials with no blade or knife making sources would not be listed at all, unless you think literally every material known to man belongs in here, because Im sure someone has tried to make a blade out of everything. The way its written now it does little to enlighten anyone on the facts about materials and their usage in blade making, its just doing more to further the "art" of it, which is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.41.198 ( talk) 03:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
DSR1K8, a steel known to exist. No further information is available. DSR1K9, a steel known to exist. No further information is available. DSR10UA, used for small scissors. DSR1K11, a steel known to exist. No further information is available.
It seems like every $5+ knife at walmart and harbor freight etc, is now called "High Carbon Stainless." While I suspect in the real world, claimed specifications are not checked and it's meaningless undefined hype, we need to attempt an explanation. ( Spyderco famously discovered that their knife supplier/maker was marking 8Cr13MoV steel as 440C.) My limited observations are; at least these "High Carbon Stainless" knives take an edge. If true this means cheap knives have greatly improved since say, 2000. Any thoughts?
Technically, I believe "high carbon stainless steel" can be any steel with about .50% carbon and up so 420hc, 440a, aus8,8/9, and cr1Xmov can be described as so. While that does eliminate a number of (once very common) garbage stainless and soft surgicals, it's not saying much.
--
71.133.255.249 (
talk)
02:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Don't worry about Spyderco 8Cr13MoV steel: this steel actually has a high grade of Carbon (minimum of 0.80% or so). It's a good steel. Francisco Roig.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of blade materials. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of blade materials. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I just edited D2, and found several old fashioned claims, some counter to more modern claims, but I removed none. For example; Article says about D2 tool steel:
"While not as tough as premium carbon steels, it is much tougher than premium stainless steels.[1]"
The whole D2 section used only Ref 1, which is:
"Knife Steel Composition And Name Conversion Chart". zknives.com. Retrieved 2010-05-03. http://zknives.com/knives/steels/steelchart.php
That (extremely often used) ref (name: SteelChart) makes no such claims AFAICT, it is just a Steels Composition chart, period.
Also questionable: D2 "With a chrome content of 12.00%, some call it a (is) "semi-stainless", because of the lack of free Chromium in solution," ...same ref 1. But my ref 8 explains that by definition it's stainless, it only "has 12% chromium so it doesn't resist corrosion as well as high chromium tool steels (like 440C and ATS-34)..."
1) Any reasons why I shouldn't remove/clarify those?
2) I wonder how often ref 1 is used to "justify" old myths and such?
Cheers! --
2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3471:8113:4E45:E68 (
talk)
19:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford
I came to this page curious about the various forms of stainless steel used for blades, scissors & cutting devices and I found the information here very interesting.
Then, hoping to find even more detailed information, I went to the separate page titled "Stainless Steel". There, I was surprised to not find any reference to "Super stainless steels" (a topic included on this page). That left me a bit confused: I don't know whether one page is more up to date than the other or if perhaps the term "Super stainless steels" is not widely accepted as a uniform description (in which case, perhaps it should not be a topic title here?), but I do hope someone who really knows about "Stainless Steels" will please edit one or both of these pages to harmonize the information.
I have one additional suggestion for editors knowledgeable about blade steels in particular: For those of us trying to learn about this topic, it would be very useful if someone will add to this article a chart listing (in ascending or descending order) the relative hardnesses of all of the individual blade steels identified in this article. I noticed several references to relative hardness as between steels within the same steel "family", but not so much as between steels in different "families".
Pdalton ( talk) 01:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have not contributed to Wikipedia before, so please forgive any breaches in process or convention. The "Super stainless steels" section of this article states that the steels described are "non-magnetic". I am not sure about most of the steels on the list, but Vanax is magnetic. I just checked a Vanax blade to make sure I am not crazy (magnet sticks). I am not comfortable actually changing the article itself, but I think this statement either needs to be defended or removed if inaccurate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.118.211 ( talk) 14:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This article has the oldest Needing Cleanup tag ( Category:Articles needing cleanup from May 2010). I think the details about each specific kind of steel should be moved to the sub-articles (like Alloy steel, Chrome steel, Crucible Industries, and so forth) and removed from this article. The difficulty here is that, currently, the details in this article differ from the details in those articles. It's probably going to take someone familiar with blade materials to help sort all this out. - Brian Kendig ( talk) 17:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Working on finding sources by going through citations of the related articles. Here's one: https://web.archive.org/web/20230307013505/https://www.asminternational.org/documents/10192/1849770/06940G_Chapter_1.pdf/53f29213-5dd6-4499-9959-841477b385b9
Will be responding to this for more (either for myself or for anyone else interested in cleaning up this article). SomeoneDreaming ( talk) 03:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
will anyone help me with the common blade elements segment? It will not list like I need it. if you look at the edit page you will see the element, than under it you will see a dot and a description. But in the published article they are both on the same line. I need help! Abc123456person ( talk) 19:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Who was editing while I was editing! Abc123456person ( talk) 23:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh wait never mind. Abc123456person ( talk) 13:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Woohoo!!! It has listed correctly! It turns out that this character • makes it impossible to list in the right manner. But these characters :* do make it possible plus I have added links so if you feel the need for science click a link. Abc123456person ( talk) 03:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
can someone help me with the description for a lot of the steels IE the MOV steels that say things like "no description available" or "we currently know nothing about this steel"? thank you! 166.147.64.249 ( talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Daido DSRxx steels exist in knife steel composition chart( http://zknives.com/knives/steels/steelchart.php), with either direct description or descriptions of their equivalents in other standards. DSR1K6 and DSR1K6M are two difference alloys, and their respective compositions are also in the steel chart. ZviJ —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC).
This so called article is an absolute joke. Was this written by children or mentally disabled adults? Some combination? I'd like to nominate this disgrace for deletion once I review the processes and procedures for that. Just thought I'd give a fair warning or maybe encourage someone to severely clean this thing up. This article contains vastly more literal nonsense than it does it does actual information. I'd guess probably 90% of the citations are totally invalid, if not more.
Edc.bros.are.idiots (
talk)
06:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Some bulleted items end in punctuation while others do not. Generally, list items should be parallel in structure. Another structural issue is most steels are followed by a comma and a single dependent clause, but some have two. Is there a reason these have two and aren't separated into another sentence, as the other bulleted items do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 ( talk) 21:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
These all need to either be cited, or, more likely, removed. The whole page should probably be redone to emphasize composition, as right now it is riddled with generalizations of how widespread each steel is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 ( talk) 16:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, a complete reversion is wrong. I'll take out the citations and leave the rest, since it makes no sense how it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 ( talk) 19:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Finally, the citation at the end is not sufficient, as the preceding sentences, wherever I put the citation needed tag, are unfounded and, in fact, mostly not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 ( talk) 19:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I still don't understand the order listed of the steels, though. Is there some structure I am missing? If not, wouldn't alphabetical order help the reader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 ( talk) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that stainless steel was the most commonly used steel in knives. But I believe your (Mike) edit, as you are more knowledgeable on the subject. I was debating on whether or not I should add other steels that are less commonly used then the majority of the list? Also should we remove the non-proprietary metals from the Spyderco article? Halofanatic333 ( talk) 14:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Blade steel →
List of blade materials —
Good work, everyone. I'd sugest rewriting more of this in paragraph style, with the possibility of forming a separate "
List of Blade steels". If you have print sources to back up some refs that will help too:Blade, Knives Illustrated, etc.--
Mike -
Μολὼν λαβέ
14:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment I almost forgot about this page. I think before anything else takes place, the content box should be moved to the left. Also the top, in my opinion, is a lot to swallow, and Steel Terms should be its own article rather than a part of was meant to be a quasi-list of various steels and materials used in blades. I just realized, it should be renamed blade materials if we continue to list non-steels (like obsidian or ceramic).
Halofanatic333 (
talk)
12:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
There are two sections of info on crucible industries CPM series. These should be consolidated into one. The Japanese VG steel section has "san mai" listed. This is a construction style, not a steel type. San mai of VG1 is listed, but vg10 san mai isn't, and it is probably the most common san mai in high end kitchen knives. VGMax is proprietary to shun. VG13 is used by high end kitchen knife makers including chroma cnives and is not listed
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.167.132.245 ( talk) 23:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Split "Steel Terms" → Steel terminology — As this is a list of materials, the steel terms section should be its own article. It is a lot to swallow, and has little to do with the actual list. There should be a basic section, but it should be trimmed down, with a link to an article solely about steel terms. Halofanatic333 ( talk) 12:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Whats the verdict? Halofanatic333 ( talk) 12:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay so maybe we should rename the article?-- Abc123456person ( talk) 23:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to have the "terminology" section. It's totally against the style of Wikipedia. No other (good) article has such a section - you don't need to split it out like that. Instead, on the first natural use of the term, you should link to the article containing the information. There are plenty of examples of pages dealing with complex subjects which don't have a section for terminology.
87.75.141.237 (
talk)
13:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure who wanted to discuss the subject. Anyway, I've added reference to H1 steel data hosted in the steel database. Notes attached to the composition include Sal Glesser's information regarding Spyderco Q-Fog testing of the H1 steel and it is clear the steel is rust-proof, not just resistant. Also, high chromium alone doesn't define steel stain resistance properties. E.g. ZDP-189 having 20% Chromium is a lot more prone to corrosion than many other steels with considerably lower Chromium in it. ZviJ
When adding external links, please make distinction between standard specifications from various countries and proprietary versions for a given alloy. They are not the same. E.g. A2 currently is linked to Bohler-Uddeholm's product sheet for their A2 conforming steel, but there is a big difference between standard spec and specific maker's implementation of it. Maker can add/remove a few elements, not specify others, and still list the alloy as confirming or roughly equivalent of the said standard spec.
All external links for standard names linked to Bohler's site should be revised and replaced with references to ASTM(AISI, SAE) standard specs. There is no reason to have one foreign maker's specific alloy listed as a replacement for an official US alloy standard spec, or have US maker's proprietary alloy replace DIN or GB standard alloy spec. Knife steel composition chart( http://zknives.com/knives/steels/steelchart.php) has standard specifications and cross reference information to corresponding standards from other countries. Efunda also has the same information, but crossference data isn't as complete, plus you can only view few pages a day in a free mode. Matweb is completely free, but crossreference info is scarce. ZviJ —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC).
i am here. you wanted to speak with me zvij? Abc123456person ( talk) 05:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Zvij? Abc123456person ( talk) 04:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
ZVIJ? hello? Abc123456person ( talk) 22:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The external links scattered throughout the list, such as PDF links, have to go. Wikipedia only permits external links in the references and external links sections. There may be no external links in the list proper. Yworo ( talk) 01:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the worst example I've seen yet of enthusiasts writing wikipedia. Its barely more than a list of materials, many of which dont even have the attempt of some sort of blade making note added, even an unsubstantiated one. Who is the "We" being referred to frequently? Let me guess, blade making forum members? If this were to be a useful article, the materials would be presented in a table with quantitative values describing toughness, hardness, and so on, with only blade or knife making relevant notes and sources listed. Materials with no blade or knife making sources would not be listed at all, unless you think literally every material known to man belongs in here, because Im sure someone has tried to make a blade out of everything. The way its written now it does little to enlighten anyone on the facts about materials and their usage in blade making, its just doing more to further the "art" of it, which is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.41.198 ( talk) 03:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
DSR1K8, a steel known to exist. No further information is available. DSR1K9, a steel known to exist. No further information is available. DSR10UA, used for small scissors. DSR1K11, a steel known to exist. No further information is available.
It seems like every $5+ knife at walmart and harbor freight etc, is now called "High Carbon Stainless." While I suspect in the real world, claimed specifications are not checked and it's meaningless undefined hype, we need to attempt an explanation. ( Spyderco famously discovered that their knife supplier/maker was marking 8Cr13MoV steel as 440C.) My limited observations are; at least these "High Carbon Stainless" knives take an edge. If true this means cheap knives have greatly improved since say, 2000. Any thoughts?
Technically, I believe "high carbon stainless steel" can be any steel with about .50% carbon and up so 420hc, 440a, aus8,8/9, and cr1Xmov can be described as so. While that does eliminate a number of (once very common) garbage stainless and soft surgicals, it's not saying much.
--
71.133.255.249 (
talk)
02:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Don't worry about Spyderco 8Cr13MoV steel: this steel actually has a high grade of Carbon (minimum of 0.80% or so). It's a good steel. Francisco Roig.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of blade materials. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of blade materials. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I just edited D2, and found several old fashioned claims, some counter to more modern claims, but I removed none. For example; Article says about D2 tool steel:
"While not as tough as premium carbon steels, it is much tougher than premium stainless steels.[1]"
The whole D2 section used only Ref 1, which is:
"Knife Steel Composition And Name Conversion Chart". zknives.com. Retrieved 2010-05-03. http://zknives.com/knives/steels/steelchart.php
That (extremely often used) ref (name: SteelChart) makes no such claims AFAICT, it is just a Steels Composition chart, period.
Also questionable: D2 "With a chrome content of 12.00%, some call it a (is) "semi-stainless", because of the lack of free Chromium in solution," ...same ref 1. But my ref 8 explains that by definition it's stainless, it only "has 12% chromium so it doesn't resist corrosion as well as high chromium tool steels (like 440C and ATS-34)..."
1) Any reasons why I shouldn't remove/clarify those?
2) I wonder how often ref 1 is used to "justify" old myths and such?
Cheers! --
2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3471:8113:4E45:E68 (
talk)
19:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford
I came to this page curious about the various forms of stainless steel used for blades, scissors & cutting devices and I found the information here very interesting.
Then, hoping to find even more detailed information, I went to the separate page titled "Stainless Steel". There, I was surprised to not find any reference to "Super stainless steels" (a topic included on this page). That left me a bit confused: I don't know whether one page is more up to date than the other or if perhaps the term "Super stainless steels" is not widely accepted as a uniform description (in which case, perhaps it should not be a topic title here?), but I do hope someone who really knows about "Stainless Steels" will please edit one or both of these pages to harmonize the information.
I have one additional suggestion for editors knowledgeable about blade steels in particular: For those of us trying to learn about this topic, it would be very useful if someone will add to this article a chart listing (in ascending or descending order) the relative hardnesses of all of the individual blade steels identified in this article. I noticed several references to relative hardness as between steels within the same steel "family", but not so much as between steels in different "families".
Pdalton ( talk) 01:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have not contributed to Wikipedia before, so please forgive any breaches in process or convention. The "Super stainless steels" section of this article states that the steels described are "non-magnetic". I am not sure about most of the steels on the list, but Vanax is magnetic. I just checked a Vanax blade to make sure I am not crazy (magnet sticks). I am not comfortable actually changing the article itself, but I think this statement either needs to be defended or removed if inaccurate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.118.211 ( talk) 14:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This article has the oldest Needing Cleanup tag ( Category:Articles needing cleanup from May 2010). I think the details about each specific kind of steel should be moved to the sub-articles (like Alloy steel, Chrome steel, Crucible Industries, and so forth) and removed from this article. The difficulty here is that, currently, the details in this article differ from the details in those articles. It's probably going to take someone familiar with blade materials to help sort all this out. - Brian Kendig ( talk) 17:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Working on finding sources by going through citations of the related articles. Here's one: https://web.archive.org/web/20230307013505/https://www.asminternational.org/documents/10192/1849770/06940G_Chapter_1.pdf/53f29213-5dd6-4499-9959-841477b385b9
Will be responding to this for more (either for myself or for anyone else interested in cleaning up this article). SomeoneDreaming ( talk) 03:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)