Talk:Toledo steel

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Toledo steel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Blades (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blades, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BladesWikipedia:WikiProject BladesTemplate:WikiProject BladesBlades articles

Metalworking

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 20 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryannikki29.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Claims without references

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close. Depurplecow, I'd like to ask you to review WP:RfC a little more closely to understand the purpose of this community tool. Typically it is utilized to resolve disputes that have become intractable and need further community input in order to resolve a deadlock. While it can (and still sometimes is) used simply to solicit community perspective even absent a content dispute, the RfC prompt still needs to present a central issue or question which the respondents can provide meaningful input regarding (so for example, "Should the article say X about Toledo steel, given the current sources that have been presented to support that statement"). With due respect to your clearly good-faith intent here, this RfC does not seem to have more focus than you laying out a laundry list of complaints about the article.

Now, knowing just a little bit about this topic as a historical matter, I think most of your complaints are actually legitimate and that addressing the issues would improve the encyclopedic tone of the article. I therefore encourage you to WP:Be bold and make the changes yourself (but also be prepared to follow WP:BRD and discuss the situation here on the talk page if you are reverted). But there seems to presently be no dispute or edit war standing in your way, and this article has seen very few edits to date, despite covering a not insignificant development in the history of metalworking, so I think you are in the clear to at least make an attempt to correct the issues you have observed. I will stop back by in the coming days to provide feedback on the changes, so you do not feel completely isolated in this task. Alternatively, if you do not feel confident in making the changes yourself, I am happy to discuss them with you and then implement them on your behalf. But in the meantime, I think there is not an immediate need for an RfC unless/until sharper questions can be raised. Additionally, welcome to the project! :) Snow ^{let's rap} 04:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article contains redundancy, unclear meaning, no/improper citations and contains unattributed claims that are are false or misleading.

Key points:

- How does a hard and flexible weapon benefit against armor?

- "most sought after weapon"

- Implies the difficult and long process makes the swords "powerful", not specific portions of the process

- mentions having material properties of both hard and soft steel, but not what they are

- "absolute best"

- "Damascus and Tamahagane steels were created in hopes of being better than Toledo steel, but that was not the case" As far as I'm aware those steels were created independently, not with the intent of recreating/surpassing another like Bulat steel made by Anosov was.

- "Damascus steel was not at all flexible" It was historically believed to be very flexible.

Overall reads like a middle schooler's essay, and may need to be rewritten. Depurplecow (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Barely a reference on the page and some downright errors

This article reads like a bad transcription/translation of a piece of high-school level PR fluff. No references. No specifics about the qualities of the steel. Stuff that is (AFAIK) not true about Damascus steel. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]