Talk:Dross

Metaphorical use of "dross"

It is completely legitimate to include this information in this article. As a purely metallurgical article it shall always remain a stub.

Dozens (hundreds) of mainly scientific articles include non-scientific, religious or cultural references in them. See for example, the following: gold, moon, bronze, salt. The section in the salt article is actually quite lengthy.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your first argument is purely speculative, and I highly disagree with it; this article will definitely become more than a stub if anyone put some time into expanding this article. I also have seen these other articles with symbolism sections, and all of the ones you reference seem perfectly legit to me, BECAUSE they explain the symbolism. You are adding straight quotes to the Bible that mean nothing to the reader of this article. As such, the symbolism section does not belong here. Since I know you are going to disagree with me, because you've re-added the info multiple times, I'm going to request a third opinion. Wizard191 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to give a third opinion for reasons given later - however I do think I can rewrite in a slightly more acceptable way. Extensions to this section (if kept) should mention which metal industrys the word "dross" is a common term (eg Al Zn).

See this diff for my changes diff

Note I found this really interesting - according to [1] the word "refuse" as in "refuse collector" comes from a metallurgical origin - ie it is waste - and therefore must be "re-fused" - ie re-melted.. !

However I'm not sure if this is really a topic for wiktionary, or not. I note the page Chaff which has some similaritys. Hopefully someone else may be able to be more authoritative later. In the meanwhile do the changes represent a starting point for a consensus compromise? Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I like this new text a lot better than the old text, because it explains the meaning of the term. Wizard191 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Since it appears you already found a consensus, I'm going to assume it is OK to remove your dispute from WP:3O :) . Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

examples of use of term "dross"

[2]

My reasoning is that the section simply exists to give some context - in fact the section would be better dealt either by:

• Separate article on "Dross (use in religious texts)"
• Wiktionary article
• Wikiquote article

If the article is about "dross metallurgy" then it should not become an exmample farm (eg see Template:example farm), for uses of the term as a metaphor. The difference is distinct - an article should not cover two subjects. If an article is relevant for the use of dross as a metaphor that should be written separately (with links). The article should not become a Wikipedia:Coatrack for another subject. I have no objection to disambiguating this article Dross (metallurgy) if needed.

See also Wikipedia:Stay_on_topic#Stay_on_topic Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a look around other "metallurgical" articles invalidates your argument. This encyclopaedia is not subject specific, but a general one.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm not arguing against including a section on metaphorical uses, just against turning the article in to an example farm. Though frankly you'd have to give examples of the other article since I'm not psychic. I see the article gold has a symbolism section eg Gold#Symbolism - it does not concentrate on re-quoting every example of a reference to gold in a religious text. - Howevere if that is what you want to do I would recommend it be confined to a note.

Did you read WP:Coatrack by the way ?

Also were you interested in extending the coverage to literature uses of the term "dross" outside religious texts, or in popular culture.? There must be some notable examples?

The other point I would make is not to give undue weight to a subsection.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, "coatrack" is another bit of silly Wikipedia obscurantism and jargon. Doesn't impress me, and not relevant here. You still haven't pointed out why the material doesn't belong here, it's a bit like saying that the Man in the Moon article contains barely any astronomical content. The religious references do not belong on wiktionary, they aren't etymological. Just because the article refers to a by-product of smelting, doesn't mean we have to be literalist about the whole thing.

You also know full well that an article on religious references to dross would be read by no one, probably vandalised etc.-MacRusgail (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on the "man in the moon" example is silly - that's an article about folklore, this is an article about a "dross (metallurgy)" - ie see the lead section of the article.

I apologise if you take exception to "coatrack" - let me put it another way - avoid 'feature creep'. There's already been a strong objection to the inclusion of any non-metalurgical info on this particular page, and the reason the "etymology and usage" section appears is because I wrote it as a compromise.

Since the inclusion or otherwise of a particular example is arbitrary, I've included all of them (in an attempt at a compromise with you) - and left the details as a note. Hopefully that will satisfy you.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The title is not "dross (metallurgy)", it is just "dross", and even if it were the former, the material would still be relevant. If this was a purely scientific encyclopaedia, you would have a point, but it's not. I think it is perfectly valid to put cultural information in this article, as has already been done with other articles on metals. I included "the Man on the Moon" article as an example, because there are plenty of things on Wikipedia which are primarily of scientific interest (e.g. the moon), but which have other relevance. I don't see what the problem is here anyway, it's not exactly as if this stub of an article was brimful of information. All of the quotes included are related to dross - otherwise, we are getting into literalist territory. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC) p.s. I've already offered you a compromise, by removing information on the other meanings of this word.

Hang on - I've included what you were banging on about, do you still have a problem. Also I'm not sure when you 'offered a compromise' or what it was? What do you mean by 'removing other meanings of the word'? Did you see the latest version of the article (use purge) - I assumed you would be happy with it.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Must have been a misunderstanding? I appreciate the links you added by the way - one of which is v. good, the other I have doubts about - see below.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the page as it now stands. As for the link, see below... -MacRusgail (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange site

• http://www.themetalcasting.com/slag-dross-formation-tendency.html

This link was in the external links - there is something odd about this site - it appears to contain some interesting metals information. But I'm not sure about the overall reliability - in particular lack of references in the articles, and the odd use of english suggest it is an amatuer effort (or possibly a translation)

eg from http://www.themetalcasting.com/powder-metallurgy.html There's a a huge market evolving for Powder Metallurgy. The strides that it has made especially over the past quarter century is no doubt a remarkable achievement. No doubt world wide metal powder production is exceeding 1 million tons.. see what I mean about the language.

To me it looks like a mirror of a wikipedia page (ad supported) but probably isn't - I don't think this site should be taken to be reliable - maybe an expert should look at it.

The linked page http://www.themetalcasting.com/slag-dross-formation-tendency.html also defines dross a residue from non-ferrous metals, is this correct? Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I just did a search for a few relevant sites. If you think it's dubious, by all means remove it.--MacRusgail (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Elements referred to as alloys

The introduction refers to "alloys such as tin, lead, zinc or aluminium". But isn't an alloy strictly a mixture of elements? These are elements, themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.146.65 (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to fix that.Oranjblud (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The main article on "dross" should NOT be its metallurgical definition

This article should be moved to "dross (metallurgical)" or somesuch, and then this can be a general/disambiguation article about dross in general.

CapnZapp (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)