Talk:Superstructure

Split needed

This should be either a disambig page, or a page about superstructure in engineering, with a dis note to other uses. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a split so much as simply removing everything that isn't engineering – because that's already discussed elsewhere. I will just do it. Hans Adler 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We can merge the social content into base and superstructure. That will transform this article into Superstructure (engineering). I suggest that this article is moved to that title, and a new disambig created in its place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Or we just leave it here. The overwhelming number of incoming links was for the engineering topic. I have just finished redirected everything else to base and superstructure. Hans Adler 18:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have done the split and also removed the WikiProject Sociology. While doing that, I noticed it said "Importance: High". Given the state of the article I find that hard to take seriously, and in any case superstructure (sociology) can still be created if necessary. Hans Adler 18:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Superstructures of ships need to be split into an own article.

(All present images show these.)

--Ikar.us (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn per nominator. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Superstructure → Superstructure (civil engineering) — Disambig needed. Superstructure in physics is also quite important. Marie Poise (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Marie_Poise/Superstructure → Superstructure
• Oppose - I think that while the other meanings are important, when it comes to what readers are likely to be looking for they are a distant second to the subject of this page. If that is true, then per WP:PT this article should sit here. I'd like to move User:Marie_Poise/Superstructure to Superstructure (disambiguation) and adjust the hatnote here accordingly. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This depends very much on whether you are an engineer, a scientist, or a philosopher. Google scholar: hits #1 and #3-6,8-10 go to superstructure (condensed matter), #2 goes to base and superstructure, #7 is an astrophysical analogue of superstructure (condensed matter). Superstructure (engineering) seems of little importance for scholars. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That is unsurprising - ship superstructures don't sound like a particularly interesting research topic. If this encyclopedia were targeted at scholars then I would agree with your conclusion. But consider that normal dictionaries typically don't even mention the uses other than the subject of this article. When most people say "superstructure" they're talking about ships. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose to the common person, the current article is the primary usage. WP:JARGON on the other meanings. The dab page can go at superstructure (disambiguation) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• OK, I accept that as a majority vote. -- Marie Poise (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The most times that I have heard or read the word "superstructure" it meant a ship's or boat's superstructure. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  Wouldn't that be an argument in favor of "oppose"? ErikHaugen (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is closed, folks. I have withdrawn my proposal and implemented the solution Erik proposed. -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Huh?

"...having the degree of freedom zero [in the terms of theory of machines]"

What on earth is all this about? --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 08:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Superlattice article

Superlattice Doesn't it worth to make a common article for this kind of structures? There is also a relationship with articles where multilayer optical devices are mentioned.--193.146.9.175 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)