Talk:Cementation (metallurgy)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
I do not quite understand this article, but is it not describing the Cementation process? If so, should this article not be merged to it, effectively replaced with a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I split this page from the original cementation page. I didn't really inspect it all to make sure it was all legit. If this doesn't describe what's going on in the cementation process then why would you want to merge it into the cementation process article? --Wizard191 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- My problem is merely that I hve not quite understood the terms used, and so was reluctant to merge it without discussion. Basically I was not sure, and so was asking a question, in the hope that some one would know the answer. I had to look at Cementation process today because it had had a well-meaning (but inappropriate) addition about a geological process. To deal with this I added an "otheruses" template, but perhpas there is a better one. Also, it is tagged as "physical chemistry", but surely that is not correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at this again on a fresh morning, you are right. This is not about the cementation process, but it is not about metallurgy, but (if anything) chemistry, though I have no recollection of being taught anything about it when I did a degree in chemistry many years ago. Accordingly the disambiguator should be Chemistry, not metallurgy. That suffix should be used for a redirect to cementation process. Comments? Peterkingiron (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- The one article that links here is Zinc smelting#Purification, but what is described seems more like inorganic chemistry than metallurgy to me, though the disticntion is a fine one. I am posting a notice of this discussion on its talk page, since I suspect that few people are watching this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I researched this a little bit, and it is a legit topic. It seems pretty prevalent in the extraction of gold (example 1; example 2). I do agree with you that metallurgy is the incorrect disambig modifier. I propose that it should be either "chemistry" or "chemical science". --Wizard191 (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- My problem is merely that I hve not quite understood the terms used, and so was reluctant to merge it without discussion. Basically I was not sure, and so was asking a question, in the hope that some one would know the answer. I had to look at Cementation process today because it had had a well-meaning (but inappropriate) addition about a geological process. To deal with this I added an "otheruses" template, but perhpas there is a better one. Also, it is tagged as "physical chemistry", but surely that is not correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)