Talk:Tribology

message: I'm currently working on restructuring the page. Most importantly, I changed the overall structure to accommodate both background information on the field as well as an overview of fundamental principles in the field. Ideally, all scientifc concepts should be place on separate wiki articles, which is why I moved the information on "Stribeck curve" to a separate article => "Stribeck curve".
Moritz Ploss (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring of Page in Progress 

message: A French wikibook has commons images that may be relevant to this article.  Does anybody wish to check, because I wouldn't know what is proper. gren グレン 07:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant wikibook 

message: I had a link here that someone pulled because he thought it was too commercial. So I found the white paper (tribology of polymers) without any marketing - junk in it and put it in, please write on my talk page if this is still too commercial for Tribology. Rsteif 21:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: Help me out here, I am new to this: I was going to add a link to the National Centre for Advanced Tribology at Southampton (nCATS) - see http://www.southampton.ac.uk/ncats/  -  but was warned that adding this would be "advertising" and against guidelines. I am unsure if it is okay to add the link, or not: how do you define "advertising"? We are not a company selling goods, however, just like we are interested in knowing about the other tribology research groups listed in the section, they might be interested in knowing that we exist and what we do too, so we are "advertising" the fact that we exists which would enable the other groups to find out what we are up to, and get in touch if they have similar reserach interests and want to initiate collaboration or discussion. Is this permissible or not? 152.78.177.7 (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding link to national Tribology Centre 

message: The third sentence of this section is missing a key word  marked by (<>). I am unaware of the context here and request help in choosing the correct term to complete the meaning.   
Spyglasses  20:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jost Report

message: At the end of the article, a citation needed thingy is placed after the sentence "The use of lubricants which minimize direct surface contact reduces tool wear and power requirements." This is covered under pages such as friction, so unless we absolutely need a source that says this, we could just borrow information from the relevant pages or exclude a citation requirement.76.198.37.8 (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Needed: Borrow One or Don't need it

message: Dear Reviewers dear All,
I wanted to created an separate article based on green tribology, which is becoming important issue. However, currently I do not have a lot of material, therefore you proposed merging of the article, rather than separate article. This is completely understandable and I want to start merging this important subject to article tribology. To my opinion, the best way would be link to currently existing phrase "Green Tribology" in article "Tribology". Would you agree on this kind of merging or you suggest something different?
Best regards and thank you for your time.
Marko  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markotint (talk • contribs) 06:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For now there isn't enough knowledge about green tribology to warrant either a merger or a separate article. I reject the proposal. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Green Tribology to article Tribology 

message: The "Table of static and dynamic friction coefficients most used" table refers to "Scioled wood ski–snow" contact surfaces.  I'm not familiar with the term "scioled", and could not find a definition online.
The term does not seem to appear anywhere else in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22scioled%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1
Likewise, it doesn't appear in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scioled, or in Britannica online, or in Google search results: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22scioled%22
Based on context, I'd expect a word like "waxed" here, so I don't have a good guess what the author intended.  It appears the term was introduced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tribology&diff=prev&oldid=864170204&diffmode=source Michaelsmedberg (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Scioled" a mistype?