Talk:Thin-film optics

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Old merge proposal

I think that Optical coating, Multilayer optics, and Thin-film optics should be merged, probably under the latter title. While we're at it, Optical coating#Antireflection coatings should be merged into Anti-reflective coating (which should be kept as a separate article), and the section on AR coatings in the general optical coatings article should be replaced with a brief summary, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Comments?--Srleffler 08:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these need to be merged and Thin-film optics would be the best title. Dtneilson 14:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merge of the AR coatings section into Anti-reflective coating is complete. The larger 3-way merge remains to be done.--Srleffler 06:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged multilayer optics into optical coating. Does it still seem reasonable to merge that into this article? Perhaps the topic is big enough to keep the two separate.--Srleffler 06:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New merge proposal

I have proposed that Thin-film interference be merged with Thin-film optics. I'm comfortable with either title. What do others think?--Srleffler (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this. It's merely a different sub-topic of the same subject. I do feel myself leaning toward the name thin-film interference, simply because this describes the phenomenon itself whereas thin-film optics denotes the branch of science that deals with it. I really could see it either way, though. Zaereth (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having given this more thought, "Thin-film optics" may be the better choice for the title. I don't know. I'm no expert on the subject. Perhaps this term also covers other thin films. Would metallic coatings also fall under thin-film optics?Zaereth (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thin film optics and thin film interference should be kept separate. The hyperlink is good enough as an explanation of how thin film optics work. Combining the two does not take into account the fact that interferometric methodologies are used to measure the thickness of thin films and a title of "thin film optics" would make such a search very difficult indeed.Bilbo701 (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the merge tags. This merge does not have consensus.--Srleffler (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thin-film optics/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A layman would not know to seek info on silvering/optical coatings under thin-films. Keep them separate and cross reference. I was looking for an article describing how to silver a mirror, a la telescope makers books of the 50's but didn't find such in wikipedia, unfortunately. 12.77.113.94 03:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Hillar Ilves [email protected][reply]

Last edited at 03:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)