Talk:List of brazing alloys
Appearance
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
points
[edit]If the melting points are a range then it is a wikipedia standard to use a dash, not a /
- Not a range, but solidus/liquidus points. Clarified. Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Toxicity
[edit]It has also been pointed out that the "toxic" column could be replaced with a * or other annotation mark on any toxic brazes.83.100.230.154 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't we just remove this column because only a few entries use it. The toxicity can be noted in the notes cell. Wizard191 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Smaller font
[edit]How does it look now with the smaller font on a non-wide screen computer? Every screen I use is a wide screen, so it looked fine to me to begin with. Wizard191 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Undid, sorry, looked too bad on 1024x768. What are the problems when viewing the current version on wide screen? Width is certainly tunable, but I would oppose small font (80% reduction is noticeable) - it is used for optional info which only few people will read, but here table is the core. Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- At 2200 px, it is way off the side of the screen for even my widescreen. Do you mind if I change the value to essentially match my widescreen, that way anyone else with a widescreen won't need to use the scroll bar? Or another idea is to just make the element percentages just 80% text size, although this would require a lot of work. Wizard191 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I thought the usage of slide bar was unavoidable evil for this overly wide table. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- On a widescreen it looks fine, which is why I was asking the above. Wizard191 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm certainly biased, as I mostly use non-wide screens. I will check several resolutions tomorrow (hardware, not software tricks) to see the difference between versions there. Other opinions are welcome, off course. Materialscientist (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, 1700px matches my widescreen. Wizard191 (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Both the current and "small-font small-width" version look Ok on wide screens (say 1920x1200), but the latter looks bad on 1024x768 or 1280x1024 - not only because of small font but mostly because the last column is pushed to the multiline mode. Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- So that means you're not OK with changing the width of the table to 1700px? Wizard191 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer as it is now, but I won't argue over this. Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- So that means you're not OK with changing the width of the table to 1700px? Wizard191 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Both the current and "small-font small-width" version look Ok on wide screens (say 1920x1200), but the latter looks bad on 1024x768 or 1280x1024 - not only because of small font but mostly because the last column is pushed to the multiline mode. Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, 1700px matches my widescreen. Wizard191 (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm certainly biased, as I mostly use non-wide screens. I will check several resolutions tomorrow (hardware, not software tricks) to see the difference between versions there. Other opinions are welcome, off course. Materialscientist (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- On a widescreen it looks fine, which is why I was asking the above. Wizard191 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I thought the usage of slide bar was unavoidable evil for this overly wide table. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- At 2200 px, it is way off the side of the screen for even my widescreen. Do you mind if I change the value to essentially match my widescreen, that way anyone else with a widescreen won't need to use the scroll bar? Or another idea is to just make the element percentages just 80% text size, although this would require a lot of work. Wizard191 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
sort
[edit]The temperature column doesn't sort right. Not much point in having a sortable table if it doesn't sort right. Gah4 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)