Talk:Superstructure

message: How is each section confusing? How does each section need to be cleaned up? Hyacinth 09:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is confusing or hard to understand? What needs clarification? Hyacinth 01:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 01:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Why and how should this article be split? Hyacinth 09:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: What needs to be cited in this article? Hyacinth 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite needed

message: This article currently asserts, categorically and without a source, that the term "superstructure" on ships "only applies to structure which stretches for the full breadth of the vessel", and that a wheel house is not a superstructure. Is this really a widely accepted distinction? And what about boats? Is a deckhouse or wheelhouse on a boat not a superstructure? See, for example, this definition of a wheelhouse and this definition of a superstructure.--Geronimo20 (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that "full breadth" is not a widely accepted distinction; in fact, it's a distinction I'd never come across before.  According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstructure, it's "the structural part of a ship above the main deck". Nibios (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the current "full breath" definition would seem to be incorrect and should be changed. As it is unsourced and we have sources provided by the two of you that clearly state the opposite, I see no problem in changing the article. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I took out the "full breadth" part, but what's left feels like it still needs work. Nibios (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Superstructure versus deck house

message: This should be either a disambig page, or a page about superstructure in engineering, with a dis note to other uses. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a split so much as simply removing everything that isn't engineering – because that's already discussed elsewhere. I will just do it. Hans Adler 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We can merge the social content into base and superstructure. That will transform this article into Superstructure (engineering). I suggest that this article is moved to that title, and a new disambig created in its place. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we just leave it here. The overwhelming number of incoming links was for the engineering topic. I have just finished redirected everything else to base and superstructure. Hans Adler 18:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I have done the split and also removed the WikiProject Sociology. While doing that, I noticed it said "Importance: High". Given the state of the article I find that hard to take seriously, and in any case superstructure (sociology) can still be created if necessary. Hans Adler 18:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Split needed

message: "...having the degree of freedom zero [in the terms of theory of machines]"
What on earth is all this about? --Eamonnca1 TALK 08:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: Superlattice Doesn't it worth to make a common article for this kind of structures? There is also a relationship with articles where multilayer optical devices are mentioned.--193.146.9.175 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superlattice article