Talk:Ceramic chemistry

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 February 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is redundant

There are numerous other pages about the chemistry of ceramics (ceramic, ceramic_engineering, ceramic_materials...) which cover the chemistry of ceramics better than this page. Since almost everything here pertains to raku pottery, (which is covered under raku_ware,) and has less to contribute to the other articles covering this subject, I suggest this article be merged into that one.67.9.80.50 (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceramic chemistry is a branch of inorganic chemistry

Is it? Well why can it not be found mentioned in reference books?

This article was created by a person who owns a website selling software that claims to help in this particular field. The whole content of this article, and the external link, appear to be nothing more than spamming: all other contributions to Wikipedia from the same contributor are also links to the same website. Considering the gross errors found on this external website, especially what is claimed to be a database of materials, the author is advised to spend time correcting these many errors than undertaking a crude marketing exercise.

I am the original contributor of this article, I started it. The original article was a short and concise description of what ceramic chemistry is, your claim it is spamming is false, ridiculous, cruel and uncalled for. Ceramic chemistry is obviously the use of chemistry in the ceramic industry, I have never heard of anyone questioning the existence of this. You need to check the curriculums of hundreds of universities because they are teaching it, it was invented 100 years ago. The link I thought I put was to my ceramic database, but I do not see it. It is the most practical and extensive available for traditional ceramics, search for any material you can name and the number one google hits are on my site. I have been working on it and the software for 30 years, never made a profit once, it was done for the love of ceramics, I am living in Mexico because I cannot afford to live anywhere else, all for the dedication to this project. Come on, be reasonable, wikipedia is absolutely loaded with information about products and services, we need to know about them. If you have a problem with a specific piece of information, say something.

Most of the discussion and links added to my original paragraph have nothing to do with ceramic chemistry, they should be removed. Raku is the one ceramic process that has the least use of chemistry of all, it is spontaneous, raku artists are famous for opposing technical approaches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.165.117.74 (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is bad

This is a bad, and I mean really bad, article: It is beyond rescue. At best it was written by an enthusiatic amateur, but certainly one with little knoweldge or understanding. Its existence should be an embarrassment to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.90.10.77 (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'tis true. someone should delete the crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.23.69.109 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, c'est terrible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.198.171 (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

I don't know if ceramic chemistry exists or not but this page is completly messed up. I suggest that this page be deleted and (if necessary) recreated. KingSupernova (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support its deletion. Both because, as you note, it's hopeless messed up, and that the subject is made up: glass science exists, as does ceramic science and ceramic engineering but there is no subject called 'ceramic chemistry'. One person attempted to invent the subject to promote his badly written and error-strewn website & software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.187.78.182 (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ceramic chemistry. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801183429/http://www.claystation.com:80/technical/glazestation/glazecalc.html to http://www.claystation.com/technical/glazestation/glazecalc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

Leaving aside how badly-written the article is: isn't this 'subject' just what is more widely known as ceramic technology or ceramic engineering? 86.187.160.120 (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ceramic#Properties?

Seems like consensus is that this article doesn't really need to exist/"ceramic chemistry" isn't a distinct idea. And it looks like now we've whittled it down to a single sentence. IMO we should just redirect to ceramic or ceramic engineering because everything that could be said here is better said there. Thesixthstaff (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the suggestion of a redirect. A review of the history and comments show the article was created as a Trogan Horse to promote a commercial site, which itself appears to have a bad reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.106.183 (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is probably for the best. I did some quick work to clarify the reference but the topic really isn't "ceramic chemistry" but "how chemistry is used in the context of processing ceramics", which is better suited for the ceramic engineering page. Recon rabbit 17:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]