Talk:Molybdenum disulfide

message: *--Stone (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Apart from the obvious, that ski wax companies do add it to ski wax, I am not sure what would constitute a reliable source. I included two references from Toko and Swix and I'm sure there are many chemistry articles. If anyone has reliable sources, please insert. Thanks tragedian (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in ski wax 

message: A thin layer is also used in some flute and saxophone pads, for lubrication. Not sure what a valid source would be, perhaps the website of the seller? Check out gold Schmidt saxophone pads.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.165.83 (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in instrument pads 

message: I have heard that powdered MoS2 applied as a lubricant has the trait of forming solid crystalline masses of MoS2 under pressure, with the result that over time the surface buildup can cause previously moving parts (such as ball bearings) to jam in place and cease moving.  Which is the reason (supposedly) a lubricating substance so useful and so chemically inert isn't in universal use for everything from automotive wheel bearings to firearms to motor oil.  Can anyone confirm this, and give documentation for this?  Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.156.96 (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  buildup of solids under pressure? 

message: About 16,400 articles are cite-able on MoS2, as of July 1, 2013.  The area is heavily studied obviously. Today I started to replace some of the primary citations with more general ones, using recent-ness of reviews (>2009) or their citation hit rate.  The reason that I am doing this is my concern that the article be bogged down with a lot of specialised literature.  I guess this aspect is less of a problem since we instituted a "Research trends" section.  If other editors are slightly concerned please leave a note and I will undo my deletions.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Updating refs is a noble task and I commend you for it. However, I don't think it makes sense to delete cited content that an editor thought notable just because the source is primary. Conversely, non-notable material should be removed even given a secondary source. Lfstevens (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the message.  A few comments:  The topic of citing literature is a huge issue with me, so I welcome your input.  Here are some unguarded comments. If Wikipedia-Chemistry relied more on secondary references, many problems would be alleviated.  Getting to your specific question, I ask which of the 16000+ publications should be cited in our article on MoS2? Even 1% would overwhelm the article and make it almost useless.  Should we accept citations suggested by infrequent editors?  That approach seems both inviting (it's the Wiki-way and we get new perspectives) and potentially capricious.  Based on my fairly assiduous efforts, infrequent editors are almost invariably citing their own work, which is hardly a criterion for inclusion.  I am not trying to be nasty to you or them, and the removal of such contributions pains me each time (who am I to remove contributions from someone who I dont even know?). But the alternative is more painful: articles bloated with self-promotion and false claims that would delude the naive reader seeking basic info. I could go on, but your advice or comments would be most welcome.  --Smokefoot (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

text: To expand a little more, since potential or real abuse of primary citation is one I worry about vs their potential utility and the openness of Wikipedia. Take a look - in edit mode of my user page - for a partial list of COI editors. Pretty evident that these editors are not contributing to further mankind, but only the promote themselves.  On the other hand, there are lots of edits of a specialized variety that I assist with or dont mess with. Some interactions from the last week include User:Sodiumtetrahydrateintermediate, User talk:Valeg96, and User:E.Thorsos.  I dont necessarily agree with them on all details, but I defer on the side of open-mindedness.  --Smokefoot (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: According to Chemical Abstracts, 1578 reports have appeared in 2014 on molybdenum disulfide as of Dec 10.  About 30 reports per week.  --Smokefoot (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a lot of specialized literature today.  Within the next 24 h I will add several general references convering electronics, H2 evolution etc.  --Smokefoot (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

text: The way to go is to pick a recent, highly cited review in a major journal, and draw content from that review. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Status report on literature

message: Google finds lots of research since 2012 on gate-induced/Ising-protected superconductivity in Mos2 monolayers (eg. when in contact with ionic fluids, eg Tunnelling spectroscopy of gate-induced superconductivity in MoS2., Gate-induced superconductivity in atomically thin MoS2 2015, Electric-field-induced superconductivity at 9.4 K in a layered transition metal disulphide MoS2 2012). Can we summarise in Properties or Research ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See if you can find a review on the subject?  I can help if you can do that kind of search.  --Smokefoot (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  superconductivity in monolayers