Talk:Glass

Broken glass

@Polyamorph: I agree that image doesn't fit in the section where it exists, but I think it's a little strange that the article on glass doesn't have any section about fracture mechanics or failure mechanisms. Is there something I'm missing, or is this just conspicuously absent? jp×g 08:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The physical properties section states that glass is brittle and will fracture. There are links to Tempered glass and Laminated glass. There could perhaps be an expansion of this section to include fracture mechanics and thermal shock etc. but as this is a GA these will need to be well sourced and any figures will need to fit the text.Polyamorph (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

Please remove this

rather than true glass, which did not appear until 15th century BC.

and add this

rather than true glass, which did not appear until the 15th century BC.

Thank you. 108.39.223.134 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments related to GA listing in March 2020

Article was originally in American English before being changed to British English in February of 2020

This article's first stub was originally in American English and the vast bulk of its edits remained in American English until a rework of the article by user Polyamorph in February of 2020. A cursory review of the history reveals this, to wit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=343117046 . This is the original stub and it uses the American spelling of the word "color".

The relevant policy at https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_existing_styles states:

"When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.

When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page."

I endeavor to give here the most fulsome picture possible of the history of the article to emphasize the point. Apologies if this is lengthy, I have tried to make it as comprehensible as possible, with details.

Extended content

Circa February 10, 2020, a substantial and lengthy series of edits was conducted by user Polyamorph, who had previously done work on the article going back for over a decade. Interestingly, his or her prior edits were all in American spellings. Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=939958647 -- an edit by Polyamorph on 9 February 2020, in which American spellings are exclusively used. This was one of the last before he reworked the article and changed things https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=932226701 -- an edit, chosen at random (not cherry-picked), from December 24, 2019, in which American spellings are exclusively used https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=771353809 -- an edit, chosen at random, from 21 March 2017 in which all spellings are American and none are British in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=632837645 -- an edit by Polyamorph from 7 November 2014 in which all spellings are American and none are British https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=608178776 -- an edit chosen at random from 12 May 2014 in which all spellings are American and none are British https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=438502355 -- an article from 9 July 2011 in which the word "color" appears 13 times, "colour" appears zero times in the text body (once as a citation); "fiber" appears once and "fibre" appears twice https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=314162573 -- an edit by Polyamorph from 15 September 2009; "color" appears 28 times, "colour" appears zero times in the text body (twice in citations); "fiber" appears 16 times and "fibre" appears once https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=192514783 -- a randomly chosen edit from 19 February 2008 which is among the most evenly split. "Color" appears 14 times and "colour" appears 14 times, as well. "Fiber" appears 4 times and "fibre" appears 3 times https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=1062976 -- a randomly chosen edit from 20 June 2003, early in the article's history; spellings are exclusively American with the exception of a single use of "fibre optic"

User Polyamorph had been heavily involved in creating the article over a period of over a decade and operated within the existing style of American spellings until his rework that commenced around February 10 of 2020. As the history of the article shows, there was a very great number of edits by Polyamorph during which the body of the article was significantly expanded and improved. The first edits by Polyamorph retained the pre-existing American spellings, as is seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=939963111 on February 9 of 2020 which hails from early in his process. It was not until these series of edits that Polyamorph began to change the spellings, which was not substantively related to the work he or she was doing on the article's text:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=940160047 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=940159649 -- 10 February 2020, changed color to "colour" for no relevant reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glass&oldid=940398312 -- 12 February 2020, this is the first time that "fiberglass" turns into "fibreglass" throughout the article

A review of the History for the Talk page shows that there was no template for an English version until after Polyamorph changed the spellings to British, at which point a British English template was added. This occurred at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glass&oldid=940159817 on 10 February 2020 with the edit summary "BE" indicating that Polyamorph was claiming the article to be in British English. Although there was no formal template added until this point, policy does not require there to be a template in order for an article to have established an English standard. The history of usage in the body of text, and specifically the standard used in the first revision edit in the history, are controlling. An examination of the history clearly shows that the article was both primarily in American English over the course of its history and that its original post-stub was also in American English, which is conclusive.

It appears that user Polyamorph felt that substantially reworking the article in February of 2020 represented a valid occasion to spontaneously change the spellings from American to British. However, he is incorrect on that score. While I commend his enthusiasm for editing the article, changing the spellings was inappropriate. This is why I have undone it. I have left the substance of his article improvement intact, however. PhilHudson82 (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry why is this so important? I write in British English and wrote most of the content. Prior to this there was a mix of ENGVAR. Please focus on something more constructive. Polyamorph (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It is regarded as important, but looking at the history I can't detect any engvar in 2001; by 2004 it used both "colour" and "color" and so on, and seems to have been mixed for many years thereafter. The only discussion in the archives supported BREng - see Talk:Glass/Archive_4#English_spellings from 2014-15. Perhaps you could point to a "pure American" version in the history? Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Not important enough to warrant a wall of text detailing very specifically my editing behaviour. IMO. There was mixed ENGVAR throughout the history of the article. Polyamorph (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Glass art

Rather more important than asking for sky-is-blue references on improvements to a truly piss-poor art section. I've no idea what User:Chiswick Chap was doing passing that at GA. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

How rude, but easily answered as a matter of fact: art is a subsection of this article on glass-as-a-material, and three articles that deal with glass-in-art are linked. The GA criterion here is "covers the main points", which I take to be that glass has been and is used in art, basta. Detail is for the linked articles. Believe me when I say that the article's coverage of art was greatly improved in the GA process. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I can believe that, but it was still terrible, with several actual inaccuracies, and unduly small compared to the physics stuff. There is also next to nothing on glass as an industry. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

So in your opinion ENGVAR pedantry is more important than reliable sourcing the content you add. OK then...I'll just removed any unsourced content, easily solved.Polyamorph (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, to me this seems like much ado about nothing. To a very small number of people (relatively speaking) the superiority of British over American English (or visa versa) seems like this all-important thing, and that has always puzzled me, because it is all just idiomatic. The question I would have to ask them is why? Sometimes there are very good reasons, and I can agree with those, but like 90% of the time the answer to this question tells me a lot about the person answering it, but little in the way of why it really matters to the article.

I'll admit, I've always been a little fascinated at how some British people cling so hard to these French spellings, but equally fascinating are the Americans who reject them with equal fervor/fervour. But then again, I've always been fascinated by the brain, the mind, and the history of the English language. ("If you want to understand a people, first learn their language, to learn how their minds work, then understand their religion so you'll know their hearts.") Spelling standards are relatively new. Just try reading Old or Middle English.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter one way or the other, as long as the article is consistent throughout. This article really started off with both, as the liquid/solid debate took off quite rapidly very early on, and it remained that way for quite a long time, and nobody seemed to care. In any of these conversations, I have not seen anyone even try to give a compelling, logically valid reason why it should be one over the other. What I do know is: starting off with a combative stance like this and trying to play some kind of blame game is an extremely poor way to try and build consensus for whatever point a person is trying to make. If there is a good reason to change it, people should just start with that, and you'll get a lot more accomplished. The rest is all just a distraction and is likely to have the opposite effect as intended.

The same really goes with the art. I'm often a very blunt critic when it comes to writing, but if I just say things like "terrible" and stop there, then I'm nagging. It's always better to point out actual problems and give possible solutions, or try to fix them yourself, but I'd like to see sources of equal or better quality than is found in the rest of the article. Polyamorph and I talked about this during the GA assessment, because neither of us know jack about art, so we did the best we could with the few resources we had, knowing that it could likely use some improvement. So why not just improve it? It makes little sense to start off combatively. Zaereth (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I did better than that - I just rewrote it to be a lot less terrible. I think if you look at the recent edits here you can see who started combative, & who then upped the stakes. Sources will follow. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You repeated content that already existed in the history section, which is actually making matters worse. And it was unsourced. And take responsibility for your own behaviour here please, if you want improvements then you have to work with us which means adjusting your attitude significantly. Polyamorph (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Zaereth I'll add to that, if an editor is willing to help improve the glass art section then they are most welcome, or any other section (such as industry). But please make sure any additional content is sourced and doesn't repeat information already provided (e.g. in the history section). I also agree with Chiswick Chap that while it is essential we have a section on glass art, in depth coverage belongs in the three main articles that are clearly linked (Studio glass, Art glass, Glass art). Actually if those articles were improved it would be a lot easier to summarise here.Polyamorph (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You seriously think we are within a million miles of anything that could be called "in depth coverage", or that anyone proposed that here??? Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the material. There are 3 main articles on glass art which need significant improvement, it would be wise to improve the content there. We don't need in-depth coverage here, a summary is fine. Of course improvements are welcome. Polyamorph (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll start by saying that this should probably be in a different section, because it's an entirely different issue from Phil's problem. Sometimes less is more. As contradictory as that sounds, the quicker and briefer that you can get the gist of the information across; the better it will usually sound to the reader, and the easier it will be for them to read and comprehend. While I see what you were going for Johnbod, I also see a lot of personal insight and opinions woven into the work. For example, "best in Europe" is an opinion, which would be better explained in terms of what makes it better. Likewise, "terrible" is an opinion, but it does nothing to help us see what you find so terrible about it.

In my opinion, this is an article about the material, so that is really the main crux of this entire article. We should explain what it is, how it's made, where it came from, and briefly touch upon all its uses, but we don't need to give undue weight to any one of those uses. This is what I'd call a "parent article". This subject is far too large to fit everything in one article, so it all is very briefly summarized here, with "sub-article" links to the subordinate articles. It really serves as a brief summary and a sort of directory to the relevant articles.

For example, Energy is the parent of Kinetic energy and Potential energy. Potential energy, in turn, is the parent of gravitational potential energy, chemical potential energy, etc... As an analogy, the Mirror article discusses the object, but gives only very brief summaries of their uses with main-article links to the sub-articles. Anyone who wants more info can click on those links to learn more.

Likewise, an article I am rather proud of is Basic fighter maneuvers. It gives the most basic, general information about the principles, concepts, history, and uses, but the maneuvers themselves need only the briefest of descriptions with main-article links. See, the vast majority of people who view an article will never bother to read the whole thing. In fact, readers are by far in the minority. The largest percentage of people are just researching an answer to a very specific question, followed by those only looking to answer, "What the hell does this word mean?" For all these people, it's best to keep the parent article as generalized and brief as possible, and put the details in the sub-articles. It's just a more logical order, and makes everything easier to read and find.

For this article, I would just briefly summarize the glass art article in one or two paragraphs, whatever is concise yet still precise, and let that article serve as the parent for all the other art articles. Likewise, those article could use a little more of the science, such as explaining how adding different colors can create stresses in the glass. (Why stained glass is usually leaded together rather than welded.) That's my two cents. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking this might be better stripped down a bit and renamed to Glass (material science) or Glass (material). But if you are going to take the plain term as a title, you can't just say "of course we only mean the material science". You need to cover what readers will reasonably expect from the general title, which certainly includes the history, industry and art. And do it properly. Without complaining about it. The article seems to me to go into tremendous detail on the science, though no doubt there is much more to say, and to be unbalanced in that respect, given its general title. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Glass as a material is clearly the primary topic and does not require disambiguation in the title given its ubiquitous use in modern society. Glass art is a sub topic and an application of the material. So I agree with Zaereth, we should only be providing a summary here, linking to the relevant articles, as we already do. Although, just to be clear, I do agree with you Johnbod that our summary coverage of glass art should be improved. Polyamorph (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, for the record, during the GA review I actually twice requested expert assistance for the Glass art section at the visual arts wikiproject (where Johnbod is an active participant) and got crickets Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Archive_20#Glass_GA_review. Polyamorph (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so it's all my fault then. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not say that, but you were aware of the issues at the time of the GA review and only now, a year later come here to tell us what a shit job we did. I would be very happy to work with you to sort out these problems, if you would like our assistance then please start a new section here on what you think is missing or needs doing and how we can help. In the meantime I am closing this specific thread.Polyamorph (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I have no recollection of seeing that, & if I had, I might have helped. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I seem to recall you editing the article around the time of the GA review, but it doesn't matter, my only point was that this isn't something I intentionally tried to brush under the carpet.Polyamorph (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

More general points

• The lead is much too short for the size of the article. Per WP:LEAD all 4 available paras should be used. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• I can't judge the scientific aspects, but the history section seems very weak on the social history of glass. People (especially those with homework to do) are likely to come here to find the answers to questions like "When and where did people start using glass in windows/drinking out of glasses as a common thing?" They won't get much help here. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Many of the references, especially in the history section, are weak, & some probably not RS. Generally the references seem to be a collection of individual web sources, in an all too familiar WP pattern. None of the many, easily available, large books actually about glass seem to be used much, which might give a more balanced view. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• There are 16 See also's, much too high a number, and probably not the right ones. They should be worked into the text or just cut. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. For the lead, sure lets expand it. Most references cited in this article are reliable, but as you say there are some web sources in the history section are probably not quite so good. There is actually a substantial amount of history detailed in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica on glass which is public domain material. In fact this is cited in the history section but could be used more extensively. It's not much use for 20th century history but seems a great resource for the early history. Any recommendations for any other good books on the history of glass or glass art? Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

In general it is best to avoid sources over a century old. On a google search, the kind of secondary/tertiary sources we should using probably include:

• [1]
• Glass: A World History, By Alan Macfarlane, Alan Macfarlane Gerry Martin University of Chicago Press, Gerry Martin · 2002
• [2]
• [3]
• Maybe [4]

On the art side, I only have (just on general glass):

• Battie, David and Cottle, Simon, eds., Sotheby's Concise Encyclopedia of Glass, 1991, Conran Octopus, ISBN 1850296545
• Osborne, Harold (ed), The Oxford Companion to the Decorative Arts, 1975, OUP, ISBN 0198661134 (20 double-column pages in the main "glass" article)

-but I wouldn't add there yourself. The Corning Museum has a lot online, & there are Metropolitan Museum catalogues online. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Some comments:

[1] Shelby is a Glass scientist, we already cite in the glass types and colour sections. It is a good resource for glass science but only a small amount on history of glass.

[2] The Macfarlane book looks promising but unfortunately I can't even see a preview.

[3] Shackleford we also already cite, again is an excellent resource for the glass science.

[4] is a good reference for physical properties of glass, which would be useful in the Properties and Types sections. But in this reference there is a bibliography for history of glass, including [5], [6].

I don't have much time right now. But when I do (likely in a few weeks) I will take a look at improving the history section. If you would like to have a go at the art section (if you have time) then that would be very welcome. Polyamorph (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the 2nd one looks best on the history, which the art books also cover. I will return to the art section, but after circling round the the truly awful glass art etc. I hope the scope of that vs art glass and studio glass is already clearer. I've just discovered we don't have anything at all on cut glass, which redirects to something completely different; etc. So I may be some time. David Whitehouse (your first link) is a top guy, long with the Corning Museum, they have tons of his stuff online. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know, I haven't forgotten about this. I'm just very busy in real-life. Once I get some free time to read the references I will start working through the history section. Polyamorph (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

"Although brittle, silicate glass is extremely durable and many examples of glass fragments exist from early glass-making cultures." makes no sense. Suggestion is to remove "Although" from the beginning. MattDaCatt (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is colloquially correct, although you're right in that, in the very technical sense, "although" is a conjunction, thus in formal writing is not normally used to begin a sentence, although people do it all the time. It's like beginning a sentence with "and" or "but". What it means is that glass still has very high yield strength, compressive strength, tensile strength, and hardness despite having rather low shear strength and fracture toughness. However, simply removing the word would definitely not make sense, because the adjective "brittle" would be sitting there all alone. I changed it to a formally correct construction, while still maintaining the original meaning. Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done see above Run n Fly (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeh, that would be my writing, I'm not very good at knowing the rules when it comes to formal writing...I don't remember ever properly being taught! Thanks for fixing @Zaereth: Polyamorph (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The adjustment doesn't solve the problem that "brittle" and "durable" appear to be contradictory, unless you think about it. "Durable" is probably not the best word, as in practice non-brittleness is something we expect from "durable" things. Another issue is that ancient glass tends to be very thin by modern standards. It would be better to say something like "Although brittle, buried silicate glass will survive for very long periods if not disturbed, and many examples of glass fragments exist from early glass-making cultures." In fact we have more Roman glass than from other periods before the 17th century, if nearly all as fragments (Battie & Cottle, 26). Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Your re-wording sounds good to me.Polyamorph (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks great to me. It helps clear up any confusion. I wasn't really sure what Matt was asking for, so took a shot in the dark that it was a simple grammatical problem. Go ahead and change it. I'd do it myself but I'm going to be off in the wild with the bears and moose and wolves, and the dreaded mosquito. Zaereth (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

English

Write short notes on

Some properties of glass

Coloured glass 2401:4900:5026:67A9:FF03:1196:BBB0:B046 (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence is written rather awkwardly:

"Glass is a non-crystalline, often transparent amorphous solid, that has widespread practical, technological, and decorative use in, for example, window panes, tableware, and optics."

I propose changing it to:

"Glass is a non-crystalline, often transparent, amorphous solid that has widespread practical, technological, and decorative uses such as window panes, tableware, and optics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.5.2 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. Zaereth (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I do agree - Proceed Sandkuhle (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)