Talk:Comminution

Latest comment: 12 years ago by 98.70.55.150 in topic multiple uses

Untitled edit

The medical community also uses the term comminution. The definition here is not entirely accurate in that context. A reference for this was previously reverted without explanation. In that instance, [citation needed] would probably have been a good thing to try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John G Eggert (talkcontribs) 03:04, 20 April 2011

You are correct in that my rollback last October should have had an explanation. The added wording was rather "out of place" and the reference given was nonWP:RS. As the main usage appears to be in materials science, starting out with a definition for a med usage seems awkward. How to introduce the "other uses" without turning the short article into a WP:disambiguation page is the problem I guess. The process is important in mineral processing, but I don't know how significant it is in other fields. Maybe start off with a general definition of reduction in particle size - then proceed to the more detailed bits as the current article does including a bit about medical (pharmacy) use with a better source. I'm visualizing an "antique pharmacist grinding potions with a mortar & pestle", but don't know much beyond that ... ? Vsmith (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Maybe a disambiguation link at the top to grinder? Vsmith (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Agree almost fully with your assessment. The on-line dictionary would seem a relatively reliable source. Mayhap I should have linked to Bone_fracture which notes comminuted fracture. I have since spent some time rewriting the page as it is genuinely poor. It is in MS word right now. Will post when done. (also looked at ore, seetalk:Ore and have initiated a potential addition to Mineral_processing It is also in MS word right now. Will post when done. Cheers and thanks. John G Eggert (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

multiple uses edit

There are too many different uses of "Comminution" represented in this article. It would probably be necessary to sort out these uses in different sections. --98.70.55.150 (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply