Talk:Vitreous enamel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Glass (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Old stuff[edit]

These images are copyright. Is this not a violation? --Wetman 17:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm the one with the copyright on them and the images are free to use, as long as they aren't changed.--Chammy Koala 19:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I mention Erika Speel Dictionary of Enamelling as a reference (being connected to the author)? Jackiespeel 18:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed an external link someone added to:
I don't think this is the place to advertise commercial sites with no educational content.

In my opinion the Erika Speel reference would be a good contribution.

Pre-enamelling technique?[edit]

I came here looking for a technique i'd read about similar in technology ,creation and function to enamelling, but can't fid it. it was used by the scandanavian cultures (Viking era peoples) and IIRC, also used high temp baking ,but didn't use glass, but something else... anyone help?ThuranX 19:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

nevermind. it's niello.ThuranX 06:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not enough science or technology[edit]

How does the process work? What sort of glass is used? Need much more info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scott Adler (talkcontribs) 08:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree to this - we do need a lot more on the technology here. Ruth Fillery-Travis (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Enamelling - not just a metalworking technique[edit]

I have added a brief section on Roman glass vessel enamelling, but I wanted to point out that enamelling isn't just a metalworking technique. Perhaps someone who knows how (sorry, i'm just a beginner) could link this article to glass working etc as well? Ruth Fillery-Travis (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


"Bicycle frames and similar steel objects are traditionally stove enamelled in countries such as the UK."

I'm not really sure what the latter part of this sentence means. If this kind of technique is carried out in countries "such as the UK", what are these other 'similar' countries? Is the process done somewhere else? Is the stove-enamelling technique reserved to a certain kind of bicycle frame? And what kind of object is "similar" to a bicycle frame?? Jimjamjak (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

English variations[edit]

In the first version of this ariticle (found here) I found the following BR/US spelling:

  • colorful -US
  • Enamelling -BR
  • advertising -BR
  • jewelry -US
  • enameled -US
  • enameling -US
  • colored -US
  • gray - US

That's 6 to 2 for US spelling, therefore US spelling is what this article should be written in. Wizard191 (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  • As Enamelling is used in the original I have restored it. Also, the claim of 'BR', which I assume you mean British, is not exclusively correct. For example 'enamelling' is used in a number of countries other than Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, the original contributor was British. See [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And the quoted temperatures were in centigrade and not fahrenheit. The latter now only being used in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I've asked for a 3rd opinion, because I don't think you are going to accept any argument I propose. However, I'm still going to point out that WP:ENGVAR doesn't say anything about using WHOIS to determine what type of English should be used, nor using the temperature, which is defined at WP:UNIT as being the most commonly used worldwide, here being Celsius. Wizard191 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Please do nto start an edit war yourself and then post inapproprate warnins to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I was the one who made the spelling consistent in April 2007, although I did miss the fact that the article used both enamelling and enameling. I agree with the third opinion, and I agree with the change Wizard191 made. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Okay here is my opinion. First the facts:

  • The original article used mostly US spelling. WP:ENGVAR requires that "each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation." This is a strong argument for using US spelling given the preponderance of US-spelled words.
  • Celsius is a worldwide standard, and even US-context articles use that standard. All US scientists use the metric system. This is an article about a scientific subject, so it would naturally use the metric system. This is not an argument for using either US or UK spelling.
  • "Enamelling" is an accepted spelling in the US. The article uses both spellings; therefore, one cannot use this as an argument for US or UK spelling. Pick one and be consistent.
  • The "original contributor" is unknown. An anonymous IP from the UK moved this article here from somewhere else. This isn't an argument for UK spelling.

Those are the facts. We have one argument for US spelling plus several irrelevant points. Therefore, I agree that this article should comply with WP:ENGVAR and spell all words in the US style, because the majority of the article is written that way. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have come here after looking at <bath tub>. My opinion (4th?) is of that to claim <British spelling v American spelling> is an error. My experience, from France + other countries, is that of what is called British spelling is the lingua franca, so the debate is really <International spelling v American spelling (+maybe also W.Canada.)>.
No, that isn't the debate. What one calls the spelling isn't relevant. What matters is Wikipedia policies and guidelines, specifically WP:ENGVAR. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys! Wizard191 (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)



I'm in R & D at one of the major industrial porcelain enamel suppliers, and I am also active in the Porcelain Enamel Institute (PEI). This article starts with presenting enamel in terms of jewelry then goes into the industrial section that I wrote. I think it would be better to merge the two? Meanwhile, I am going to slowly expand the industrial section and try to add some technical information on frit making, enamel application, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldwinc4150 (talkcontribs) 16:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The three noted examples of jewelry example should go with the descriptions of the techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldwinc4150 (talkcontribs) 23:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

English variations - again[edit]

The following is a conversation I had on my talk page: Wizard191 (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You have recently posted the follwing message [3] which concerns the edits such as [4]

  • The edits are not vandalism. The reasons for the edits were noted twice in the edit summary. I would be grateful if you took note of these reasons before claiming 'vandalism.'
  • The spelling of aluminIum is the spelling used: internationally, by Wikipedia itself (see Aluminium), and by IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry).
  • Changing from aluminIum to aluminum is a hypercorrection, as was noted inthe second of my edit summaries.

Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Was this edit a good idea? The point seems well made to me. See also Aluminium#Present-day_spelling. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. The reason I keep reverting the change in spelling of aluminium/aluminum is because the article is written in American English, which is noted on the talk page. The relevant policy for the spelling of aluminium/aluminum is WP:ALUM, which states: "These international standard spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article." This is not a chemistry article, therefore the American spelling should be used. Wizard191 (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
As such, aluminium should be spelled aluminum. Wizard191 (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:ALUM is a paragraph in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Nomenclature. It therefore only relates to chemistry articles - you cannot at the same time cite it as an authority & then say it does not apply here because this is not a chemistry article! At the same time, I think that the principle it lays down is sound, and should apply here also. "Aluminium" cannot be said NOT to be an American spelling, especially in scientific contexts, though clearly it is not the most common. If we were talking about saucepan, things would be different. Incidentally, the original edit of this article, apparently moving text from somewhere else, mixed both US & UK spellings, so I wouldn't rely too much on the historical argument! Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm completely confused by your logic now. WP:ENGVAR states to use the English variation that is first used in the article, which was determined above to be American English, therefore any Br/Am should be in American English. The only policy/guideline I know that over-rides this is WP:ALUM, but, as we both agree, this isn't a chemistry article. Therefore I don't see where the ambiguity comes from; aluminium should be spelled aluminum. Wizard191 (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You were the one who introduced WP:ALUM. Imo this should apply to articles in related fields also. But in any case Aluminium is is also clearly a US spelling, very common in scientific contexts, if not in everday ones. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I brought up WP:ALUM because it is the only guideline I know that overrides WP:ENGVAR. Your argument for its application too non-chem articles should be taken up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (chemistry), as that is far outside the realm of this discussion. Wizard191 (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I am resting my case on WP:ENGVAR; you are claiming that aluminium is not American English, but it clearly is, used all the time in scientific contexts. This is the 3rd time I have had to explain this. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"Most countries use the spelling aluminium (with an i before -um). In the United States, this spelling is largely unknown, and the spelling aluminum predominates." This is the quote from aluminium; there are two references on that statement. If that is wrong, please fix it in the aluminium article and then you'll have a case to stand on. Wizard191 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the correct spelling for this article is controlled by WP:ENGVAR, and therefore is 'aluminum'. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I disagree. The spelling should be consistent with the article name aluminium, as that is the preferred international spelling, according to the article. I also agree that WP:ALUM overrides WP:ENGVAR. Why would an article about a chemical elementsubstance not be a chemistry article? It seems to contain enough chemistry content to qualify; therefore, aluminium should be the spelling used. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about a chemical element, therefore I don't think you can correctly ascertain whether or not WP:ALUM applies. Wizard191 (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Late-night typo, fixed. I stand by my comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
That's an extremely low threshold for a chemical article. Paper is made from chemicals, but I don't think any one would call paper a chemistry article. Perhaps you should get someone from WP:CHEMS to comment on that aspect. Wizard191 (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

For a third time[edit]

From my talk page: Wizard191 (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop this - the point is settled in the MOS: Wikipedia:ALUM#Element_names. Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The only time that WP:ALUM applies is "For articles about chemistry-related topics". Vitreous enamel is about a ceramic manufacturing process, not a chemistry article, therefore WP:ALUM doesn't apply. Wizard191 (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I had forgotten that this was discussed many times before (as shown above). It seems that there was no-consensus before, therefore the original layout revision should stand, until a consensus is built. Based the on the previous discussion, those seeking to change the spelling from aluminum to aluminium (JohnBod?) should discuss it at WP:CHEMS, instead of trying to strong arm me. Wizard191 (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Whether you have expressed your opinion against this spelling once, twice, thrice or more the spelling of aluminium is accepted, and as noted earlier
Also, see another editor's recent comment "Please stop this - the point is settled in the MOS: Wikipedia:ALUM#Element_names."
Regarding your comment "Vitreous enamel is about a ceramic manufacturing process, not a chemistry article .." Given enamel is form of glass most sources would not class it as a ceramic material, but that's a digression. Anyway, as an article that unquestionably relates to a branch of material science any rules, policies or guidelines related to such a subject, one that is intimately connected to chemistry do apply, so to quote: "Wikipedia follows the recommendations of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry"; "Aluminium not Aluminum"; "These international standard spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article. This convention should also be applied to all compounds and derivative names of these chemicals: e.g. sulfate not sulphate; sulfuric not sulphuric; etc."
And, please could you not post aggressive 'warnings' about 'vandalism' to people when it is simply an edit you do not personally like, and when the reason for the change has been accurately noted in the edit summary, appropriate comments added to the discussion page and other editors have voiced support. These 'warnings' could be interpreted as attempts to bully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Seeing how we are just going round and round here, I've gone ahead and asked for input from the WP:CHEMS project. Wizard191 (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Coming in from that pointer, the only question I see is how broadly applicable the WP:ALUM standard is (whether this is a chemistry-related article, or just about some thing that by the definition of "thing" is made out of a chemical). I don't recall the MOS folks ever giving explicit precedence to either ENGVAR or ALUM over the other. Seems like WT:MOS might want to join us? Anyway, I'm with "ium", since in the context here, the article is clearly talking about this material as a chemical and its behavior or properties in combinations with other chemicals rather than just as a construction material. I'm not sure about "is the whole article a chemistry one", but chemistry seems pretty intimately related with the sections where this word is involved.
On another topic, it most certainly is not WP:VANDALISM to change something to be in line with an explicit wikipedia guideline, and even explaining that. Escalating vandalism warnings for good-faith edits is completely inappropriate. DMacks (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Everyone knows that there is only ONE mention of Al right? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
....which I'm getting rather tempted to remove! Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Well thanks for the input DMacks. Per your POV I'll concede that WP:ALUM applies. Wizard191 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Factual errors and confusing sentence[edit]

The sentence now reads, "Enamelled" and "enamelling" are the preferred spellings in British English, while "enamelled" and "enameling" are preferred in American English. This is a confusing and incorrect sentence. The correct spelling in American English is "enameled". The anon IP editor refuses to acknowledge the correct English varieties and refuses to respect the national variety of English this article was originally written in. I encourage him or her to read WP:ENGVAR and please discuss here rather than edit-warring to defend these changes. Elizium23 (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please stop this. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)