Talk:Acrylic fiber

Units

Maybe add units the to atomic mass? I would imagine it is in AMUs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BCarver1 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 May 2006‎

I have added a heading to this section···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 19:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirect from orlon

why does orlon redirect here?? orlon should not redirect here unless it's explicitly mentioned in this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.33.199 (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2006‎

Orlon is specifically mentioned under "Production" 98.17.90.64 (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a heading to this section···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 19:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Why were acrylics discontinued?

The article has the phrase "former U.S. brands," implying they are no longer produced. If this is true, what is the reason?

I used to only buy socks made of Orlon. They were long lasting, and had the heft and most of the warmth of wool, which is more expensive and doesn't last as long. Wool is too hot for the summer but Orlon breathes better. Haven't seen any Orlon socks in years.

Any textile people out there who would know?Tldoran (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Acrylic

An insulator or a conductor? 58.165.59.181 (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

How about some context?

Decent article, but is acrylic non-toxic? Must be. How about edible..? As garments wear out over time, millions of tiny fibres are cast off, and some of those are naturally ingested (unless you have a NASA-caliber air filtration system in your home). If it's cotton, no problemo. But... plastics?!? (acrylic, polyester, nylon, etc.) Also breathing them in. I have to think that's much worse than breathing in cotton fibres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.249.212 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Acrylic is nontoxic. It's even nontoxic for workers exposed to high concentrations of a precursor chemical. Granted that is only two studies, but those two studies are worth more than the sum total of all junk journalism articles and toxic scare stories combined.

On the other hand, one should not attempt to inject the precursor chemicals and form acrylic directly inside the body. In other words it's safe to wear acrylic fabric, but probably not safe to use acrylic as a medical implant. The human body is a very hostile environment.

Damage caused by breathing in fibers has almost nothing to do with their chemistry or their origin (natural vs. synthetic) and everything to do with their size and shape. Asbestos is a naturally-occurring chemically inert substance but breathing the fibers will give you cancer.

If you or your dog or your child should accidentally swallow some acrylic, your concern should be for the shape and size; if it might cause blockage or perforate your intestines, seek medical attention. If it was a small, smooth bead you're going to be fine. Freshgroundcoffee (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Bold terms in article lede.

The use of bold terms for brand name was done to death elsewhere. As ever, it was a year or so ago and I cannot now remember the location, but when I find it I will post the link here.

Basically, the consensus came down to the bold brand names in this article being wrong on several levels. MOS:BOLD permits synonyms of the article tilte to be emboldened. MOS:BOLD implies but does not explicitly state that such emboldening could be the titles of separate pages that contian a redirect to the subject article. The general view was that such redirects should be created so that anyone searching for the alternate term will find the required artcle. The subject of brand names was a more contentious point. The consensus was that creating redirect pages for the brand name was advertising or 'spam' (depending on who was making the point) and since Wikipedia prohibits advertising, the brand name should not be emboldened or emphasised in any way.

There was those who considered that including the brand names at all was advertising, but the general consensus came (more or less) down to considering that the advertising was borderline and that brand names had some justifiable encyclopeadic value.

However: there was a strong view that the lede section of the article should be a summary of the article content. This is backed up by WP:LEDE which says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". Basically put: if the article body does not mention the brand names then they have no business being in the lede. If they are mentioned in the article body, then repeating them in the lede was generally regarded as undue emphasis of the brand name and therefore advertising and so still shouldn't be there. In the artcle body MOS:BOLD prohibits them from being emboldened.

Someone provided a timely reminder that: if the brand names are mentioned anywhere in the article, the very mention requires reliable (WP:RS), verifiable (WP:VERIFY) and secondary (WP:SECONDARY) sources that support the brand names as being the subject of the article. The brand name owners are not acceptable because they are primary (WP:PRIMARY)) sources. I B Wright (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just noticed that this edit moved the brand names from the article body, where they should be, to the lede. That should not have happened. I would have moved them back but as they are going to be deleted if the required references are not found, there did not seem much point at this stage. If references are found, the sentence needs moving from the lede as well. I B Wright (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Policy can sometimes be a bit tricky to interpret. It would be good to see the discussion when you find it. Your point about the content of the lead section is very pertinent. I was involved a while back in a similar disagreement over the lead content, and indeed it was held that the lead should contain nothing that is not in the main part of the article. Indeed, by this logic, the lead should not contain any references because they should be in the main part of the article.

I note from the edit history, that the editor trying to introduce the bolding, bolded the brand names when the sentence was part of the main part of the article. It was when the bolding was reverted in that it was not acepptable in the main part of the article that the same editor moved the sentence to the lead so that he could bold the brand names again. It is, as you note, not summarising anything in the main part of the article so does not belong there. 86.153.135.110 (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Considering that most if not all of these brand names are (I believe) obsolete, the "advertising" argument against creating redirects for them seems pretty thin. The claim that "the brand name owners are not acceptable because they are primary sources" is even more ridiculous. It's like saying that someone can't be used as a RS for their own name. Jeh (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's some more background on what happened. It sounds irrelevant, but hear me out: I was shopping for some yarn on eBay a few days ago. One of the sellers of a yarn product advertised that the fiber in the yarn was something I had never heard of before called Dralon. I looked it up but couldn't find it on Wikipedia. I then did some research and discovered that Dralon is a German trade name for acrylic fiber. So what I was looking at was an acrylic yarn. Clearly, it seemed to me, if a person like me had come to Wikipedia and was having a hard time finding information, that aught to be fixed, especially if the fix was as simple as adding the term to the article. And as it was an alternate name for the same product (like Kleenex for tissue or Band-Aid for plaster), I put it in bold and created a redirect, but it was not in the article lede. A subsequent editor reverted my edit, claiming that all bold terms had to be in the lede. I then moved them to the lede and re-bolded, which was then undone by the same editor, etc. etc. I do not work for Dralon GbmH, have no affiliation with them, and no interest in seeing their product advertised. I do want to know, upfront and quick, that "dralon" is another word, even a trade word, for "acrylic fiber". It seemed rather clear (to me) that this should then be in bold text since it is an alternate name. If you believe my motives here, and believe that I am doing nothing but trying to improve the project, then having these terms in bold (whether or not in the lede) seems like the consistent thing to do, and that redirects should exist from those trade-name terms to this article (they certainly do not warrant their own articles as that would be close to baldfaced advertising, but when a man goes looking for yarn he needs to know what he is finding in the fibers!). Also: consider that there are literally tens of thousands of existing Wikipedia articles in which alternate trade names for things are given in bold font in the lede section. I do not bring this up under the premise that other stuff exists, but under the premise that there has been a great deal of precedent setting which supports the inclusion of bolded alternate trade names in the lede of an article— because this helps readers, like me, quickly understand that we have indeed landed in the right place. That is a very helpful thing. KDS4444^Talk 01:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This may be regarded as advertising to include brand names, but as noted above it seems to be considered encyclopeadic and acceptable. Even so, the brand names should not be in the article lead if they are not in the main body of the article as the lead is a summary of the article and should not contain material not in the article. Repeating brand names from the article in the lead is unnecessary promotion of the brand name. 86.153.135.110 (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Regardless: Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources for any material contained in an article. 86.153.135.110 (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Although there is great emphasis on making certain that everything added to an article derives from a specific reliable secondary source, Wikipedia only requires citations for material which is challenged or likely to be challenged (see WP:CITE for relevant content guideline). I do not think that the fact that "Dralon" is an alternate name for acrylic fiber is particularly contentious, nor do the aforementioned tens of thousands of existing articles which have alternate trade names in the lede section without citations (the lede which is not really supposed to contain citations in the first place). I do not see a point in bringing Dralon or any of the other trade names up a second time in the article— a brief mention in the lede seems to be all that they warrant and is all that such names ever normally get. You can see examples of this in the following articles (some of which provide specific citations for the trade names, others of which do not, but all of which have the alternate trade names in bold font in the lede): Nikethamide, Benzthiazide, Glymidine sodium, Poloxamer, Afegostat, 2-(2-Methoxyethoxy)ethanol, Misko, Aluminium oxynitride, Recombinant human parathyroid hormone, etc. etc. KDS4444^Talk 12:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right about the 'likely to be challenged' part of sourcing claims in articles. Your problem is: that it has been challenged by this edit and sources are now required. If it were now to be deleted, as Mr Wright has suggested will happen, WP:BURDEN would require whomsoever restores the material to provide the required citations. That brand names are in the lead sections of other articles but not in the main article body just means that those articles are just plain wrong. MOS:LEAD is quite clear that the lead section is summary of the remainder of the article. The brand names therefore cannot be summarised in the lead if they are not mentioned in the main body of the article. 86.153.135.110 (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This one has been done to death as well. And this time, I can find the discussion. It is here. This was an administrators' noticeboard complaint raised because a single editor was being regarded by many as being disruptive because he routinely deleted anything from any article that he routinely patrolled that was uncited. This applied to both contentious meterial as well as the blatantly obvious. And he is still very active in this pursuit. The outcome was that he was perfectly within his rights to do so. Any claim in any article that is simply deleted as unreferenced or tagged as {{citation needed}} has, by definition, been challenged and so the "... unlikely to be challenged ..." caveat no longer applies. If the meterial was deleted, then anyone restoring it is obliged to provide the reference or they can be held to be edit warring.

Until the appearance of this editor, I had long held the view that it was common courtesy to tag a contentious point before deleting it (if no acceptable reference was forthcoming within a reasonable time). I personally still hold that view, but the outcome was that any editor is free to delete any material from any article that is not supported by a reference without giving any notice whatsoever. I note: that User:KDS4444 has indeed availed him/herself of the ability to do this here, though to be fair, he/she did place an outline reason on the talk page even though there was no obligation to do so.

Please also note: that the fact that other articles do not conform to WP:LEDE is not a valid reason as to why this one should not conform either (WP:OSE). If I had the time, I would thank KDS4444 for his helpful list of other articles; move the list of brand names to the main body (WP:LEDE) assuming they were properly referenced and remove the bolding (MOS:BOLD). I B Wright (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree about not being a summary so should not be in lede. In fact it was originally part of the main body of the article before it was recently moved into the lede. Citations to support the brand names should be easy to find, so {cn} tag perfectly in order. 10:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)