![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Techincally speaking, the opening sentence of this article is untrue. Look at the grammar. Any suggestions on correcting it? I can't come up with anything prettier than dropping the A and italicizing solid. -- Dante Alighieri 10:02 27 May 2003 (UTC)
I realise this article is pretty sad for such a major concept, but nevertheless I believe that the use of the term "solid" for the state of matter dominates. Therefore I recommend that other uses of the term in maths and jewellery should not be on this page, except in redirection notices. Walkerma 05:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is this article so short, when Gas and Liquid are much longer?-- Thatgains ( talk) 03:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the Gas expanded to fill the space available? Girth Summit ( talk) 10:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought I would 'beef things up' a bit. When I stumbled across this article (after an exhaustive review of the various articles on solid mechanics) it seemed to be 'calling to me' for extension ;-)
If there are any questions about copyright violations, I have been through this before with my article on Colloidal crystals (M.S. work @ UCLA). My own educational website on "Pure and Applied Chemistry", which includes a major section on "Materials Science", has already been declared as Public Domain.
Please be patient (or jump on in!) as links and references will follow shortly. Apart from any other potential complications and/or objections, I am only too happy to contribute, and sincerely look forward to working with you as a group :-) -- logger9 ( talk) 21:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I claim that the above image shows no long-range order. There is a small island of crystallinity in the top right corner, but it is nearly impossible to say whether or not it is fcc structure. My attempts to remove this image, which is already present in 10+ other WP articles, are getting reverted by user:Logger9 without explanation. Therefore, I put this issue here for community vote on whether or not you agree that the above image corresponds to its caption and purpose to illustrate a crystalline solid Materialscientist ( talk) 01:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
MS says that: "Using silica spheres for atoms is same as taking a photograph of a chemical constructor model." Not exactly. A chemical constructor model is not an example of an elastic solid. -- logger9 ( talk) 19:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
MS asks: "Says who..." that colloidal crystals are ideal examples of monatomic elastic crystalline solids ? For the original reference, see Williams & Crandall in Physics Letters A Volume 48, p. 330 (1973) or their subsequent article in Science Magazine in October 1977. "Gravitational Compression of Crystallized Suspensions of Polystyrene Spheres". -- logger9 ( talk) 19:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If you stayed calm and impersonal you would note that "that colloidal crystals are ideal examples of monoatomic elastic crystalline solids" is plain wrong and wouldn't waste time for the above, which is obvious. That colloidal crystals are crystals nobody questions, but they are only one, minor, and rare example, and by no means should be put in front of the whole concept of solids as it is done in the paper. The articles needs a subsection on colloidal solids and this is where you work goes. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Calmly and impersonally, the article on Colloidal crystals is already published on the Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with using the illustration as an example here, as long as that is the way in which it is presented. -- logger9 ( talk) 03:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple big issues here. We're missing at least one category, probably more: for example, crystalline insulators like ice don't fit into any of these. Nor does glass, or coal. I could start making up categories here ("insulators," "glasses," etc.) but I was hoping someone would have a better idea. The other issue is weight: the length of each treatment is wildly out of proportion to the category's importance. Gruntler ( talk) 00:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Several sections, in particular "classes of solids" and "physical properties", have become very long. Much of the material is very specialized; often the length of treatment is out of proportion. We should remember the rule "be bold" and shorten most sections by factors 2 to 5, providing links to more specialized articles. -- Marie Poise ( talk) 21:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed again two sections explaining inorganic and organic compounds. While this classification is important in chemistry, its relevance for the solid state does not become clear. In the long term, the entire parts "crystal and glass", "classes of solids" and "chemistry of solids" should be reorganized in a clearer way. Why not proceed as most textbooks: they start with a classification according to the nature of the bonds that keep the solid together. -- Marie Poise ( talk) 07:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The most basic chemical differentiation of solid matter is in terms of organic vs. inorganic compounds. To say that these sections are irrelavant is odd, and the section on inorganics is actually quite brief. I don't understand the continuing problem there. -- logger9 ( talk) 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Marie has attempted to create a new section (in an already lengthy article) called "Thermal properties" by copying the text verbatim from the opening image. Then she has placed the image there. The copied text hardly constitutes a section on thermal properties. And the image was fine where it was, especially since it is now just a large blank space. -- logger9 ( talk) 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
...but from what I can see, there's a section clearly out of place. Crystals and glasses should be a subsection of Classes of solids. I also agree with the jist of recent removals. The cut sections are best left cut. They are simply too wordy and add little to the article. Writing a lot does not mean that it's well written. Consider the two examples:
The lion is an animal from Africa. It is a big cats with four legs and thus is a quadruped. Lions walk by moving their legs forward one after another just like other animals. They also have yellow-brown fur, which is lots of strands of hair formed of keratin with yellow-brown pigment. They hunt and eat other animals (but not plants). Lions never eat trees, but they eat gazelles, gnus, and zebras. Lions' digestive system are not well-adapted to eat plants since most felines are carnivorous, in fact lions will often get sick if they are force-fed pine trees.
Detailed section on general quadruped anatomy
Subsection on lion anatomy
and
The lion (latin name) is a four-legged feline from Africa. Lions have yellow-brown hues of fur, which help them hide amongst the tall grasses and bushes. As carnivorous predators, lions hunt and kill other animals present in their enviroment, such as gazelles, gnus, and zebras.
Section on lion anatomy
Be concise, treat the reader as an intelligent person (aka no need to be pedantic), and don't write simply for the sake of writing (aka don't write about relatively (compared to the whole) unimportant details). Use {{ Main}} and {{ See also}} before creating a new section or paragraph. It tells the reader "This is a summary of the topic, For detailed explanations, go on this article dedicated to the topic." or alternatively "This is not directly relevant, but it treats a complementary aspect of the topic". Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that one factor that has contributed to the recent dispute is a lack of a top-level view on what this article should cover. It seems to me that the topic is huge, and so this can only be a very high-level article, especially if it is aiming to be beginner-friendly. I would divide the topic up something like:
(This is only top level - I haven't attempted to fill in all the sub-levels. Clearly the bonding and structure in the first two main sections are what determine the properties in the third section.)
If there was a general agreement on the direction the article should be going in, it would be easier to see what areas need more work. Once all the important topics are well covered, it's then easier to determine whether any disputed section is an irrelevant aside that just makes the article longer and more confusing, or whether it should in fact be included. Djr32 ( talk) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The most basic chemical differentiation of solid matter is in terms of organic vs. inorganic compounds. To say that these sections are irrelavant is odd, and the section on inorganics is actually quite brief. I don't understand the continuing problem there. -- logger9 ( talk) 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
As per the suggestion(s), I took a first shot at a new hierarchy based on:
The latest set of structural changes seems to take us away from having an overall structure as discussed above, and make the article seem (even more) like a random, unconnected set of subsections. I think this is a bad idea, and so propose reverting the changes. (There were also some unnecessary line breaks removed in the same change, which I don't care about either way!) Djr32 ( talk) 06:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I see that the section that I removed a few weeks ago has been re-inserted, together with many more paragraphs copied straight from Glass transition#Chalcogenides. This material is completely out of place in this article, it belongs in a much more specialised article. The section on physical properties needs to discuss the properties of solids in a much more introductory way, explaining their physical significance, etc. Djr32 ( talk) 23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Add the particle diagram pictures and some Information in a new section as thats what most kids are learning on !!!... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvipman6 ( talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
What is solid state 223.181.62.69 ( talk) 04:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Is that section a vandalism or intended to be like that? Looks like a vandalism to me, but it's been there since December 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Solid&diff=prev&oldid=997169882 78.137.17.96 ( talk) 08:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
My favorite subject is reading because it is fun u can learn many things in discover new books.that is why i like reading 2 much 2603:6011:2F0:1380:7A34:4AFF:3240:A088 ( talk) 20:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Techincally speaking, the opening sentence of this article is untrue. Look at the grammar. Any suggestions on correcting it? I can't come up with anything prettier than dropping the A and italicizing solid. -- Dante Alighieri 10:02 27 May 2003 (UTC)
I realise this article is pretty sad for such a major concept, but nevertheless I believe that the use of the term "solid" for the state of matter dominates. Therefore I recommend that other uses of the term in maths and jewellery should not be on this page, except in redirection notices. Walkerma 05:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is this article so short, when Gas and Liquid are much longer?-- Thatgains ( talk) 03:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the Gas expanded to fill the space available? Girth Summit ( talk) 10:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought I would 'beef things up' a bit. When I stumbled across this article (after an exhaustive review of the various articles on solid mechanics) it seemed to be 'calling to me' for extension ;-)
If there are any questions about copyright violations, I have been through this before with my article on Colloidal crystals (M.S. work @ UCLA). My own educational website on "Pure and Applied Chemistry", which includes a major section on "Materials Science", has already been declared as Public Domain.
Please be patient (or jump on in!) as links and references will follow shortly. Apart from any other potential complications and/or objections, I am only too happy to contribute, and sincerely look forward to working with you as a group :-) -- logger9 ( talk) 21:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I claim that the above image shows no long-range order. There is a small island of crystallinity in the top right corner, but it is nearly impossible to say whether or not it is fcc structure. My attempts to remove this image, which is already present in 10+ other WP articles, are getting reverted by user:Logger9 without explanation. Therefore, I put this issue here for community vote on whether or not you agree that the above image corresponds to its caption and purpose to illustrate a crystalline solid Materialscientist ( talk) 01:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
MS says that: "Using silica spheres for atoms is same as taking a photograph of a chemical constructor model." Not exactly. A chemical constructor model is not an example of an elastic solid. -- logger9 ( talk) 19:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
MS asks: "Says who..." that colloidal crystals are ideal examples of monatomic elastic crystalline solids ? For the original reference, see Williams & Crandall in Physics Letters A Volume 48, p. 330 (1973) or their subsequent article in Science Magazine in October 1977. "Gravitational Compression of Crystallized Suspensions of Polystyrene Spheres". -- logger9 ( talk) 19:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If you stayed calm and impersonal you would note that "that colloidal crystals are ideal examples of monoatomic elastic crystalline solids" is plain wrong and wouldn't waste time for the above, which is obvious. That colloidal crystals are crystals nobody questions, but they are only one, minor, and rare example, and by no means should be put in front of the whole concept of solids as it is done in the paper. The articles needs a subsection on colloidal solids and this is where you work goes. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Calmly and impersonally, the article on Colloidal crystals is already published on the Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with using the illustration as an example here, as long as that is the way in which it is presented. -- logger9 ( talk) 03:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple big issues here. We're missing at least one category, probably more: for example, crystalline insulators like ice don't fit into any of these. Nor does glass, or coal. I could start making up categories here ("insulators," "glasses," etc.) but I was hoping someone would have a better idea. The other issue is weight: the length of each treatment is wildly out of proportion to the category's importance. Gruntler ( talk) 00:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Several sections, in particular "classes of solids" and "physical properties", have become very long. Much of the material is very specialized; often the length of treatment is out of proportion. We should remember the rule "be bold" and shorten most sections by factors 2 to 5, providing links to more specialized articles. -- Marie Poise ( talk) 21:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed again two sections explaining inorganic and organic compounds. While this classification is important in chemistry, its relevance for the solid state does not become clear. In the long term, the entire parts "crystal and glass", "classes of solids" and "chemistry of solids" should be reorganized in a clearer way. Why not proceed as most textbooks: they start with a classification according to the nature of the bonds that keep the solid together. -- Marie Poise ( talk) 07:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The most basic chemical differentiation of solid matter is in terms of organic vs. inorganic compounds. To say that these sections are irrelavant is odd, and the section on inorganics is actually quite brief. I don't understand the continuing problem there. -- logger9 ( talk) 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Marie has attempted to create a new section (in an already lengthy article) called "Thermal properties" by copying the text verbatim from the opening image. Then she has placed the image there. The copied text hardly constitutes a section on thermal properties. And the image was fine where it was, especially since it is now just a large blank space. -- logger9 ( talk) 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
...but from what I can see, there's a section clearly out of place. Crystals and glasses should be a subsection of Classes of solids. I also agree with the jist of recent removals. The cut sections are best left cut. They are simply too wordy and add little to the article. Writing a lot does not mean that it's well written. Consider the two examples:
The lion is an animal from Africa. It is a big cats with four legs and thus is a quadruped. Lions walk by moving their legs forward one after another just like other animals. They also have yellow-brown fur, which is lots of strands of hair formed of keratin with yellow-brown pigment. They hunt and eat other animals (but not plants). Lions never eat trees, but they eat gazelles, gnus, and zebras. Lions' digestive system are not well-adapted to eat plants since most felines are carnivorous, in fact lions will often get sick if they are force-fed pine trees.
Detailed section on general quadruped anatomy
Subsection on lion anatomy
and
The lion (latin name) is a four-legged feline from Africa. Lions have yellow-brown hues of fur, which help them hide amongst the tall grasses and bushes. As carnivorous predators, lions hunt and kill other animals present in their enviroment, such as gazelles, gnus, and zebras.
Section on lion anatomy
Be concise, treat the reader as an intelligent person (aka no need to be pedantic), and don't write simply for the sake of writing (aka don't write about relatively (compared to the whole) unimportant details). Use {{ Main}} and {{ See also}} before creating a new section or paragraph. It tells the reader "This is a summary of the topic, For detailed explanations, go on this article dedicated to the topic." or alternatively "This is not directly relevant, but it treats a complementary aspect of the topic". Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that one factor that has contributed to the recent dispute is a lack of a top-level view on what this article should cover. It seems to me that the topic is huge, and so this can only be a very high-level article, especially if it is aiming to be beginner-friendly. I would divide the topic up something like:
(This is only top level - I haven't attempted to fill in all the sub-levels. Clearly the bonding and structure in the first two main sections are what determine the properties in the third section.)
If there was a general agreement on the direction the article should be going in, it would be easier to see what areas need more work. Once all the important topics are well covered, it's then easier to determine whether any disputed section is an irrelevant aside that just makes the article longer and more confusing, or whether it should in fact be included. Djr32 ( talk) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The most basic chemical differentiation of solid matter is in terms of organic vs. inorganic compounds. To say that these sections are irrelavant is odd, and the section on inorganics is actually quite brief. I don't understand the continuing problem there. -- logger9 ( talk) 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
As per the suggestion(s), I took a first shot at a new hierarchy based on:
The latest set of structural changes seems to take us away from having an overall structure as discussed above, and make the article seem (even more) like a random, unconnected set of subsections. I think this is a bad idea, and so propose reverting the changes. (There were also some unnecessary line breaks removed in the same change, which I don't care about either way!) Djr32 ( talk) 06:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I see that the section that I removed a few weeks ago has been re-inserted, together with many more paragraphs copied straight from Glass transition#Chalcogenides. This material is completely out of place in this article, it belongs in a much more specialised article. The section on physical properties needs to discuss the properties of solids in a much more introductory way, explaining their physical significance, etc. Djr32 ( talk) 23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Add the particle diagram pictures and some Information in a new section as thats what most kids are learning on !!!... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvipman6 ( talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
What is solid state 223.181.62.69 ( talk) 04:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Is that section a vandalism or intended to be like that? Looks like a vandalism to me, but it's been there since December 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Solid&diff=prev&oldid=997169882 78.137.17.96 ( talk) 08:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
My favorite subject is reading because it is fun u can learn many things in discover new books.that is why i like reading 2 much 2603:6011:2F0:1380:7A34:4AFF:3240:A088 ( talk) 20:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)