Talk:Thin film

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thin film article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Materials Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials 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.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

External link opinions

Opinions would be appreciated on whether this link: [PVD thin films information would be an appropriate addition to the article. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 21:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No: Although the information appears solid, but (1) authorship is unknown (2) any references to reputable/verifiable sources of the provided information are absent. Therefore this website fails Wikipedia:verifiability criteria. `'Míkka 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with Thin-film deposition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge. Wizard191 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a merger of Thin-film deposition and Thin film. The articles cover more or less the same subject matter. Iepeulas (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. They both very much cover the same topics. --Wizard191 (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thin-film deposition would be merged in thin film . --Mac (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What is the proper terminology? What is the most often used terminology? --Wizard191 (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merger proposal. There is no reason to have a separate article for the deposition methods used for thin films, especially if those are already described in the thin film article. --Elmerfadd (talk), 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, disagree. "Deposition" refers to the mechanism by wich the thin film is formed. It's like proposing that "ship" and "ship building" be merged. But worse - because "deposition" is only *one* technique for making thin films. Thin film must be about the films, thin film deposition is about just one way of making them. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thin-film solar cell split

I agree to the thin-film solar cell creation proposal. --Linegen (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the split too. Although the two articles have to be monitored closely for overlapping information. But it is a different subject. Thin Film Solar Cells is an application of Thin Films that is wide enough to deserve its own article. Another application of Thin Film is TFT screens. --Elmerfadd (talk), 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong object: I'm missing something here. I don't see anything in that section that warrants it to be split. Almost the whole section is a list of some sort. And two of them have been tagged to be cleaned up/deleted. As such I don't see much info there for it to be split off right now. If the section were to be populated a lot then I might consider it, but otherwise I strongly object. Wizard191 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the proposal to split to Thin film cell is moot. There is already an article on Thin Films Solar Cells which is the name of the section anyway. If anything, the content should be merged there. I'm removing the proposal tag. -Verdatum (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic that cries for a expert, or at least an advanced student to write a treatise on the term that's suitable for a general audience.

I think I qualify. How's this? Joel

I think you should try. I am interested in this area and what you'd have to contribute.

Please note also that all of bipolar PNP and NPN and JFET do not have graphics or scheme displaying physical layout of the transistor. I can try to do something according to that what is in my University textbook, but I will not do it w/o consulting others.

A simple layout, even 3D, cannot hurt the matter anyway. -- Mtodorov 69 13:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External link opinions

Opinions would be appreciated on whether this link: PVD coating theory Further information about this thin film deposition technique. would be an appropriate addition to the article. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No: Although the information appears solid, but (1) authorship is unknown (2) any references to reputable/verifiable sources of the provided information are absent. Therefore this website fails Wikipedia:verifiability criteria. `'Míkka 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminize

"Aluminize" redirects here but this article does not describe which process "Aluminization" is. Needs to be fixed. 69.72.7.166 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from list of coating techniques

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I have closed this because another article has been merged into list of coating techniques which makes it much broader than thin film coatings so I feel that it can now stand on its own as a legitimate article. Wizard191 (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the title of the article it is actually a list of coating techniques for thin-film deposition, as it says in the intro of the article. Right now the information is duplicated in both articles, and I don't see any reason to leave them split like this. --Wizard191 (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merger with Chemical bath deposition

I oppose a merger with Chemical bath deposition (CBD) because CBD is only one of several processes for thin film deposition. Biscuittin (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting content from Stranski–Krastanov_growth to here

Optical coating correcting aberrations?

Current version states that the coating of optical lenses with transparent multilayers of titanium dioxide, silicon nitride or silicon oxide etc. may correct[dubious – discuss] these aberrations. A well-known example for the progress in optical systems by thin-film technology is represented by the only a few mm wide lens in smart phone cameras. I would argue that a planar coating cannot change wavefront direction, thus it has little to do with aberrations. Adding multiple glasses helps fight aberrations very well, though, and coating these glasses helps mitigate light loss. --FDominec (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Multilayer medium into Thin film

near trivial extension fgnievinski (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Srleffler (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fgnievinski and Srleffler: There's been no opposition to your suggestion for 3 months; I think you're safe to move forward with a merge. Please let me know if I can help. Joyous! | Talk 18:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]