Talk:SAE steel grades

Question
In stainless steels, there is a last letter on each number. What does this letter mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.75.13 (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Section merges from stainless steel
Right now we have a duplication of information between the stainless steel article and this article. The information should be merged here because the info is too specific for the stainless steel article. Moreover, it helps keep the size of the stainless steel article down. --Wizard191 (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree the information relavent to stainless should be left in the stainless article. It can be duplicated here or have this article list a summary of the main points and link to full details in the stainless article.- BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your logic. If we were to follow that logic then the the SAE steel grades article shouldn't exist, because all of the carbon steel grades should be in the steel article. If more grades were added to the stainless steel article, in say European grades, then it could get overly bogged down with massive amounts of tables. That's why this article exists.
 * I also don't like the idea of duplicating the information because it can then get out of sync quickly. No matter what the outcome I don't think it should be split up the way it is right now, but rather merged all into one article. Let me know what you think. --Wizard191 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ladies/Gentlemen, I use the wiki for specific information - I realise the tables may go out of sync, but i as a simple user would like access from different 'directions'. if the table was moved from the St.Steel reference, I would lose some comparative data which i found a little useful - I would not necessarily follow a link. Rod McLeod, Ostrava, Czech republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.31.8.66 (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that reaching information about SS grades from the Stainless Steel article is more convenient and straightforward than having to be diverted to the present one. Specialists will readily recognize that these grades should be found in the present article, but for the general public, having to go through an article with a cryptic name such as "SAE steel grades" for information about types of stainless steel might throw them off. --Jonnat (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok...based on the consensus I'll leave them split. Wizard191 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Duplex and super-duplex steel grades
An IP added a note to the article asking for the grades of duplex and super-duplex steel. Wizard191 (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it mistake
Is it mistake or my reading comprehension is poor? (I'm not native Еnglish speaker.)

"The prefix "C" denoted open-hearth furnace, electric arc furnace or basic oxygen furnace, while "E" denotes electric arc furnace steel.[1][2]

So, "C" or "E" - or both stay for electric arc furnace?! Thank you in advance. --46.10.8.247 (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "C" means that it can be made made with any process, "E" means it can only be made via electric arc furnace. Wizard191 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Wizard191. I too understood it only after reading your explanation, the current phrasing of the article is unclear; perhaps it should be changed?
 * --XavierAP (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Even though type "304" is the most common type I cannot find it in the SAE table under Nickel-chromium steels (only 31xx..34xx). Anyway I don't understand that Nickel-chromium steels are shown as containing max 1.6% Cr and max 3% Ni? How can this be, it should contain around 8% Ni and 18% Cr, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSoren (talk • contribs) 07:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Graphite
I'm wondering if the reference to graphite in the Iron–carbon alloy phases box should actually be to Cliftonite? I'm not an expert, just found the graphite link strange and did some searching to see why it might have been here. Or maybe this from the graphite article: "grey cast iron are strongly influenced by the role of graphite in these materials" - Dough34 (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, cliftonite is another story and doesn't appear normally, although it is graphite according to the Wikipedia article. Steel as well as cast iron can indeed contain graphite. Cementite is more common in most steels, but graphite is chemically more stable and can be had by adding some alloying elements, most commonly silicon, or by solidifying the alloy more slowly.
 * XavierAP (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge from SAE 904L stainless steel, 17-4 stainless steel, 440C and SAE 316L stainless steel
I do not believe that the topics in those articles meet WP:GNG. Those small stubs should be merged here. We could perhaps consider creation of some sort of a list article too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As a counterpoint; if someone works on the individual alloy articles, you could get something like Category:Aluminium alloys which has a number of well done individual alloy articles (as well as a parent). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at one random article, 5083 aluminium alloy, and I do not see what makes it notable. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping bad content. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Each of these alloys has widely varying properties (corrosion, strength in various treatment/use conditions, fatigue properties) and usage based on cost and those properties. Multiple hundred words and a couple of tables worth of proper informational content per alloy, at least.  Just the top twenty Aluminum alloys by usage would fill one article to the brim; there are nearly 100 in common industrial and engineering use today.
 * And there are more varieties of steels than there are of Aluminum alloys.
 * The organizational structure should be both eventualist and aware of what not an end state but a later, well fleshed out good state would look like. I believe that in all of these cases it will be with good, average sized independent articles for most alloys.
 * Engineering and materials science are particularly weak disciplines in Wikipedia right now, in comparison to other areas. Please don't push to make that worse rather than better.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see a comparison with the Wikipedia policy of not having articles about the children of celebrities who are not independently notable, and the policy of not having articles about minor fictional characters in a notable work of fiction. I also see a comparison with the policy of accepting standalone articles on every species of animal that has a scientific name (every species is considered defacto notable) even if some of these articles are stubs (because we cannot foresee the future notability of any given species, and because any species is likely to warrant an encyclopedia article if enough information on it can be found).  I will grant that many of these articles on grades of steel are brief.  However, there are many, many, MANY references to and discussions of, for example 316L grade steel in countless reliable sources— and discussions of it specifically, not just as "one grade" of steel.  That the current article does not yet cover all of these references does not make the grade non-notable.  It only makes the article more brief that it should probably be to fully cover its subject.  Also, if we were to include even stub-sized information on each and every grade of steel in one article, the article would be enormous and the information about any given grade could become very difficult to find.  Many of these grades are not very interesting, but they are graded differently for a reason, and that reason strikes me more like the difference between species than the difference between a celebrity (which would be "SAE steel grades") and his/ her offspring (e.g., "316L").  KDS4444 (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose If individual grades can demonstrate independent notability (and the common ones easily can), then there is no reason to merge. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This grade 316L is listed as the grade of stainless used in the primary blanket panels of the ITER That seems reasonably notable. Slightlyright (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose SAE classification is only one among others and many grades correspond to different designations in ISO, EU, JIS, DIN, US MIL, etc. For instance, SAE 904L is DIN 17440. Both systems can point to the same steel type (and article).Arugia (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing, given several lines of opposition and no consensus for the merge over 18 months. Klbrain (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)