Talk:List of brazing alloys

points

If the melting points are a range then it is a wikipedia standard to use a dash, not a /

Not a range, but solidus/liquidus points. Clarified. Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity

It has also been pointed out that the "toxic" column could be replaced with a * or other annotation mark on any toxic brazes.83.100.230.154 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just remove this column because only a few entries use it. The toxicity can be noted in the notes cell. Wizard191 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller font

How does it look now with the smaller font on a non-wide screen computer? Every screen I use is a wide screen, so it looked fine to me to begin with. Wizard191 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undid, sorry, looked too bad on 1024x768. What are the problems when viewing the current version on wide screen? Width is certainly tunable, but I would oppose small font (80% reduction is noticeable) - it is used for optional info which only few people will read, but here table is the core. Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At 2200 px, it is way off the side of the screen for even my widescreen. Do you mind if I change the value to essentially match my widescreen, that way anyone else with a widescreen won't need to use the scroll bar? Or another idea is to just make the element percentages just 80% text size, although this would require a lot of work. Wizard191 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the usage of slide bar was unavoidable evil for this overly wide table. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a widescreen it looks fine, which is why I was asking the above. Wizard191 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly biased, as I mostly use non-wide screens. I will check several resolutions tomorrow (hardware, not software tricks) to see the difference between versions there. Other opinions are welcome, off course. Materialscientist (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 1700px matches my widescreen. Wizard191 (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both the current and "small-font small-width" version look Ok on wide screens (say 1920x1200), but the latter looks bad on 1024x768 or 1280x1024 - not only because of small font but mostly because the last column is pushed to the multiline mode. Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that means you're not OK with changing the width of the table to 1700px? Wizard191 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer as it is now, but I won't argue over this. Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reordered the columns, so the sortable composition ones are on the rightmost side and the description columns are closer to the basic information. Hope that makes the table easier to read on any screen. --Shaddack (talk)

sort

The temperature column doesn't sort right. Not much point in having a sortable table if it doesn't sort right. Gah4 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]