Talk:Vitreous state

could editors add info on "semi-vitreous" oor "semivitreous" -- for other articles to link to? Goldenrowley 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

The articles Vitreous state and Glassy state appear to cover the same subject. This isn't permitted. If there is complete overlap in subject matter, the articles must be merged; Wikipedia guidelines forbid content forking. If vitreous state and glassy state are not exactly the same thing, someone should explain the distinction here. --Srleffler (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Vitreous state should redirect to Glassy state while Vitreous should redirect to Glass. In both cases, the target are better developed articles and the titles are better plain English. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree about redirecting Vitreous to Glass. If there is a rationale for having two separate articles, clearly Glass needs to be the article on the material (or class of materials), and Vitreous state or Glassy state needs to be the article on the state of being vitreous. That seems like a more appropriate target for redirecting the adjective Vitreous, since the adjective refers to the state, rather than the material. If Vitreous should redirect to Glass, then all three articles should be merged into Glass.--Srleffler (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All three articles are now redirects to glass. Other solutions are not only not good, they are also not maintainable. Glassy state has been full of blunder. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that, but I've undone that - give the merge proposal time. Vsmith (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The glassy state article was quite problematic and needed to be merged somewhere - seems vitreous state would be the prefferred destination. Vireous state should remain as a separate article. Don't see any effort to actually merge the info ... so hold off a bit. Vsmith (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. We don't have separate articles on liquid and liquid state, and so on: it makes no sense. Currently, the introduction of liquid reads "Liquid is one of the principal states of matter." And so is glass. "Vitreous" is just another word for "glassy". Don't let you fool by adjective vs substantive: we also do not have separate articles on liquid (adjective) and liquid (substantive).

Furthermore, look into the edit history: the only reason why there was an article glassy state was that it was left as a dump ground for the private theories of User:Logger9 - by desparate editors who just wanted to keep him out of the main article glass. Please have a look on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. We really should solve this problem first. Otherwise, we will have trouble again and again. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles should be redirects to Glass. The material in glassy state is unencyclopedic and reads like a personal essay. The material is also repeated in the article Physics of glass, which was created by the same user and also has numerous issues. Polyamorph (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Vitreous should also be made into a disambiguation page. Polyamorph (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected Glassy state to the article Glass per my comments at talk:Glassy state. Polyamorph (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that and also agree that vitreous should be a disamb page. Vsmith (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made vitreous into a disamb page. I will also now redirect this article (Vitreous State) to Glass. Polyamorph (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Polyamorph (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]