Talk:Deposition (phase transition)
|WikiProject Physics||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
[[Media:I am a little confused about this I think someone needs to put up something about how they know this, or different ways to prove what deposition is.
Bakazan: I have added a reference to Desublimation, however given the content of the page I believe the whole article should be called Desublimation. Deposition is about forming a material on a substrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakazan (talk • contribs) 15:25, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
It's high time this was removed .
A great many "sources" seem to revert back to wikipedia as to their own source (meaning cyclical references)... and other sources seem to be of personal preference. I have no doubt that someone decided that deposition was a good enough word to use, but the real question is if it is a scientifically accepted term.
It seems as if deposition is a PROCESS that is used to induce "deposition" but is not actually a term used to describe the opposite of sublimation. Again, some people have begun to use the term as if it were, hello world!But this is WP:NOT (use of wikipedia to coin or spread the use of new terms) what a few people do (Me and *insert impressive number here* others call a chair a lyche, does that mean it deserves a wikipedian article?) should not be documented because it causes confusion. (Again, it seems a great many people have referenced wikipedia as for this being true).
There are a few "decent" websites that could support this... but for such an important concept, it certainly is not mentioned as such in any of my textbooks (though sublimation is, argue what you will... if one is mentioned the other should be as well). So I request that this article be deleted until it sites a TEXTBOOK source. The reason is simply that it seems the use of this word is "of personal preference" and not scientifically supported...
I mean, almost 5 years without sources is long enough, right? (Note, the tag was added on december 2009, but the article is from 2006)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I just want to clarify that I'm not trying to be obstinate or remove an article for no good reason. I know it will take time yet more than likely I won't voice my opinion again. All I'm saying is that this article has been a stub since the redirect was changed... and that for such an important concept, very few people seem to even reference it as such. Without getting into some Argumentum ad Ignorantum, all I'm asking is that a professional source that is "to date" confirm this. (By "professional source," I mean a textbook or similar and not something that a single PhD might reference it as)
I've found numerous websites that reference the effect as such (though not nearly as many as for a simple search of sublimation) but can't find it in my own textbooks... so all I'm saying is that some source MUST exist that is outside of research papers and ask-a-prof letters.
- As a valid ref was easily located with a simple google search I've added it and removed the uncompleted afd note. The ref is Jacobson, Mark Z., Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling, Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., 2005, p. 525 ISBN 978-0521839709 Vsmith (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)