Talk:Materials science

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): Nafiskabir000.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Important journals
I propose creating an "index" article, which lists all the Materials science journals on Engilish Wikipedia. The list in this article (Materials science) is kind of long, and perhaps deserves an index article. It might also be possible to distinguish the "most cited", or those considered "most important", by creating such a section within the index article, if that is an issue. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also don't get the overview and primary topics lists. They just don't connect to the rest... Matador (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved the journals btw.Matador (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Author link
The author link for J.E. Gordon has been restored. Thanks for pointing this out. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Engineering Materials
"Engineering materials" redirects here, as it is, I think that this article is not what a person searching for "Engineering materials" is looking for at all. So I would like to suggest either adding a section to this article on engineering materials, or, preferably, writing a whole new article on the subject. Even a stub would give people something to expand on.--130.207.152.54 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, and article ought to be created. Wizard191 (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WISER Proposal
In my opinion, starting with definition of this article, it's a good definition. However, it lacks specifications and needs to be narrowed down to smaller and clearer content relating to Materials Science. It also lacks inline citation; it's somehow unorganized so it(Content) needs to be in the right order. It also lacks major information regarding the topic, Materials Science. The article has too much excessive information which needs to be removed or replaced with proper information relying upon proper sources. Nikita Patel> Nikita62604(Wikipedia user ID)

nikita62604 (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC) —  nikita62604 comment added by Nikita62604 (talk)

Digital Materials
I'm not an experienced Wiki editor, but I do feel that the way "materials science" is defined in this article needs some TLC. First and foremost, I feel that the discussion of "digital materials" in the context of broader materials science is much too expansive for this article, and some of the content should be relegated to a dedicated article on the subject. Honestly, there is little reason that this section couldn't be integrated into the "composite materials" section (at least from a traditional materials point-of-view).

- Patrick Bowen, pkbowen (user ID), (talk) 23:11, 18 Feb 2012 (EST)
 * Go to it! 'Digital Materials' seems to be a term coined (and trademarked) by a single company. The references might be useful in the larger article, but I think you could safely remove the term altogether.  Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If 'Digital Materials" is a term coined and tradmarked by a single company then some sort of correction is probably needed. I notice that this section seems to detract from the article. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This section appears to be copyrighted material, hence it probably should be removed -- See the section entitled "Digital materials" at this page: Materials Science: Materials in Industry. Also, here is the copyright "Portions © 2012 Technology Trends. All rights reserved." Steve Quinn (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the copyrighted material. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Embedded lists
I notice a tag pertaining to the two "embedded lists". I think now that the section titles are descriptive and since explanatory sentences are now in place, it is probably appropriate to have these two sections as lists. I think as lists these serve the article much better than a prose format. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Inline citations
This article actually seems to have a decent reference list, but there's barely any inline citations outside of the Emerging technologies table. It seems like most of the other main articles for other science and engineering disciplines at least try to use citations when defining subdisciplines, if not also for the explanation of some core concepts. Chemical engineering is a shorter article, but has twice as many inline citations. Mred64 (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing
This article has a very interesting picture and a two-minute press announcement. Headline-1: University of Rochester scientists create 'super polymer' that can lift 1,000 times its mass QUOTE: " Scientists at the University of Rochester have created a new type of ‘super polymer’ that could prove an extremely useful technology in the healthcare and clothing industries. The material, which can lift 1,000 times its own mass, was developed by a research team led by Chemical Engineering Professor Mitch Anthamatten. In a press release the university explained that the material can be programmed to retain a temporary shape until is triggered – typically by heat – to return to its original shape. “Tuning the trigger temperature is only one part of the story,” said Anthamatten. “We also engineered these materials to store large amount of elastic energy, enabling them to perform more mechanical work during their shape recovery.” …   …   … Potential uses of the technology include medical sutures, artificial skin, body-heat assisted medical dispensers and self-fitting apparel, according to the university." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
 * http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/02/11/university-rochester-scientists-create-super-polymer-that-can-lift-1000-times-its-mass.html?intcmp=hpffo&intcmp=obnetwork

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Materials science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100618193936/http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/pubs_smith_group/Shelby_APL_(2001).pdf to http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/pubs_smith_group/Shelby_APL_(2001).pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Materials science. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/pubs_smith_group/Shelby_APL_%282001%29.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5oJFbfeAD?url=http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/pubs_smith_group/Smith_PRL_84_4184_%282000%29.pdf to http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/pubs_smith_group/Smith_PRL_84_4184_%282000%29.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Content should be added regarding functional materials
I was thinking that it may be useful if this article had some content on functional materials. Any ideas for where in the article one could add such information? It seems to be a term prevalent in the field of materials science, but this article does not have any information about it. Blue.painting (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding a section for bioinspired/biomimetic materials?
I think this article has been kept almost up-to-date. However, I believe some of the most recently developed research areas in the field can be highlighted; these can include, but not be limited to, biomimetic and bioinspired materials. I think the article with benefit from the addition of such topic since they can be added appropriately to the "In Research" section and can be linked to the main articles, since pages already exist for both topics under "Biomimetics" and "Bioinspiration". Delparastan (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate links
I removed links from the See also section that were already listed in the article (following the logic in MOS:NOTSEEALSO). Most of the links I removed occurred many more times than once (so a MOS:REPEATLINK cleanup may be warranted). I also removed the List of scientific journals link because the List of materials science journals now includes all of the materials science journals from that page. Please let me know if you disagree with any of the removals, or if you would disagree with the removal of duplicate links in the body of the article. There may be some logic to repeating some links, such as linking to Crystallography in both the Crystallography subsection and in the Subdisciplines section. Inverted Hourglass (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What about old materials?
If materials science covers the design and discovery of new materials, then what science covers the research about old, already well known materials and their properties? Does materials science really not cover that? Metallurgy is listed as a subdiscipline, but that article doesn't restrict the discipline to new materials; this seems to me to say that materials science is not only about new materials. So should we rephrase the introduction of this article to reflect that? —Kri (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think that materials science does include the study of previously discovered and designed materials. (I guess that research into previously discovered materials could be considered as supporting the original design or discovery, but the wording is still bad regardless.) Another problem may be the differences between materials science and materials engineering; right now, the first sentence states that materials science and engineering is synonymous with materials science. However, the engineering side of the discipline covers more than just the design and discovery of new (or old) materials. A simple example is the development of a process to achieve the needed materials properties. Inverted Hourglass (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Chemistry
Using material 41.190.132.42 (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge from Materials physics
Materials science and materials physics certainly have different emphasis, but they overlap so heavily I think they would be better discussed together. Currently materials physics is just a definition, which is not the purpose of articles. I previously proposed we just delete and redirect here, but pointed out deleting it outright might make finding information less accessible. So it seems like the best solution would be to merge here to give both the definition, and more context. &#12296; Forbes72 &#124; Talk &#12297; 02:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I support the merge. NeedsGlasses (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No objection on my part. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Physics
How many of these materials were available 10years 2401:4900:4E1A:D80F:41C1:8B36:D89A:8D13 (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Inline and Overview Modification
Hi,

So I am wondering if the overview could be a bit more clearer. While I do like the background image, I wonder if I could edit the overview such that there is a better distinction between materials chemistry, physics and engineering.

As for the inline, I probably might add more citations by next week.

First image has technical inconsistency
The Miller indices (1 0 0) and (1 1 1) on the lead SEM image cannot be both correct. Based on the image, they could be labeled (1 0 0) and (-1 1 1) or the generic {1 0 0} and {1 1 1}, but not the specific planes listed. Not likely to confuse the average reader visiting this page, but incorrect application of indices nonetheless.Pikadog (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)