Talk:Thin section
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Thin section is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] Medical use of the term
For the medical use of thin sections, see histology, which includes a detailed description of the preparation of tissue thin sections using a microtome. How widespread is the use of the actual words "thin section" in medicine? It is the commonly used term in mineralogy. Are there any doctors in the house? Jon 12:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Why did you removed links to "optical mineralogy" and "polarizing microscope"? Do you think that these things doesn't exist? Please put them back. Siim 14:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
No need to take offence... I didn't remove them, the articles didn't exist so I linked to the closest thing instead. Polarising microscopes are in the microscope article, besides which a polarizing microscope is not much more than an optical microscope with a polarizing filter. Really, we should create a petrographic microscope article and describe its features there, and link from the microscope article. optical mineralogy didn't exist at the time so I linked to mineralogy. I didn't have time to write/start a new optical mineralogy article, but if you want to, by all means go ahead :) Jon 11:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO, red links are not problem. It just tells to reader that these articles are not yet written but links which direct reader to wrong place are serious problem. Such links are one of the biggest weaknesses of wikipedia and makes me sometimes quite angry. For example, I write an article to Estonian wikipedia and want to make an interwiki links but there are only silly redirect page here which directs to totally different term. Red links are slowly disappearing because new articles are written every day but if we follow policy that we don't make red links, it means that new articles won't be found and improved after they are created because nothing links to them. Let's say that reader wants to know what is "optical mineralogy". So he or she clicks the link and reads about mineralogy which won't answer the question. It means that such link is useless and should be either removed or replaced with link to article about optical mineralogy, although it's not yet written. Maybe someone who knows that field very well will notice that red link and will write something. Siim 14:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Excellent points, I guess I hadn't ever thought of it that way round :) Jon 07:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
