Talk:Glass fiber/Archive 1

GRP Merge

Why on earth should this article be merged with glass reinforced plastic? They are two separate chemical entities. A section added to the Fiberglass article about its uses in plastic might be appropriate but that's it. Pschemp 03:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with pschemp, Please do not merge the two articles, they are completely different. It would be a good idea to add a paragraph as suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.27.109 (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

adsorb

I wrote the original article with the word ADSORB because glass is incapable of ABSORBing moisture. Def of ADSORB: the adhesion in an extremely thin layer of molecules (as of gases, solutes, or liquids) to the surfaces of solid bodies or liquids with which they are in contact -- so the person who edited adsorb to absorb was incorrect. Water molecules do not generally absorb into glass fibers. In order to do that, the molecules would have to enter the fiber. Glass is too rigid for this and can only adsorb water. Pschemp 04:36, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Integrated link to adsorption page to prevent future cases of the same - and enlighten those that did not know the difference (me included) Egil 09:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Grammatical error?

Is'nt the quotation in the first paragraph slightly wrong? it says: "... has attained so high a degree of viscosity and to be for all practical purposes rigid.", but the and should be something like "as" (As I have not read the original text, I do'nt want to change the article myself). --Talleyrand 13:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Glass Fiber -> Fiberglass

Since glass fiber redirects to fiberglass, I've added a See Also to Optical fiber. I think this might be better put as a disambiguation at the top of the article, but I'm headed to bed for tonight. Whig 06:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(I'm not too familiar with editing Wikipedia, so maybe I'm asking this question at the wrong place) Isn't Fiberglass the same thing as Glasswool? If so, I suggest a merger between the two pages.

Mixture of units

There seems to be a mixup of units in the last paragraph under Chemistry, using SAE (inches) to define the length of the fiber when the rest of the units are in Metric. Can anyone check the source and confirm if that's as-printed? If so, an alternate source may be necessary (as well as a tip to the editor of the book.)

The discrepency comes from the practice of all textile literature being written in english units even when every other science on the planet had switched to metric. The industry today still uses both. It is confusing but not actually wrong. If someone wants to do conversions for the sake of continuity that is fine by me. Pschemp 00:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Fiberglass health effects

How come this article lacks any mention of the controversy over the potential negative health effects of fiberglass? As such it doesn't seem completely NPOV. --Cab88 00:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Insulation glass fibres which evade the body's natural defences (mucous membranes etc.) dissolve in the alkaline environment of the lung. The 'controversy' is artificial or at least misguided. IARC have removed insulation glass fibres from their 'possibly carcinogenic' classification. --Miller nz 09:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting...that should all still be documented in the article, however; the claims and popular beliefs of health risks as well as contrary studies and findings. Postdlf 17:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Health Section

As it was written this was blatant copyvio from the site referenced in the article. It also lacks citiations and as such I removed it to protect wiki[edia from legal liability. pschemp | talk 13:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In 2001, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) removed insulation wool fiber glass from its list of possible carcinogens. http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/archives/pr137a.html . That action was based on a large body of both animal and human data. The animal data are from a series of long term inhalation studies in rats performed by RCC Consulting in Geneva, Switzerland. The human data were in the form of an updated epidemiology study performed by the Univ. of Pittsburgh. The IARC 2001 action reverses its prior action in 1987, which put fiber glass on the possible carcinogens list based on largely on intraperitoneal implantation studies in animals.

More recently, the National Toxicology Program (part of the US Health and Human Services Department) is currently considering adopting for the US the IARC 2001 action. http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=03C9C639-E7CC-CB6A-83088F12A2BA4DBE . That action would remove insulation fiber glass from the US list of substances “reasonably anticipated to cause cancer.”

Point of full disclosure – I work for Johns Manville, which makes a full line of naturally white Formaldehyde-freeTM fiber glass building insulation. As you can imagine, fiber glass health issues are important to us and we watch the science very carefully. I am concerned that several of the references at the end of this article are old and pre-date the IARC 2001 action. In addition, the Manufacturing Processes do not describe the JM HERM process, which is newer, uses less energy, and is lower emitting than older processes. bruceray-jm 9-16-2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruceray-jm (talk • contribs) 03:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

History of fiberglass

If there is any information in this article that can be sourced and proven, it should be merged into Fiberglass. No reason exisits to have a separate article covering this, as it all belongs on this page. This is a Good Article already though, so just dumping unverified information in would be detrimental. pschemp | talk 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The article about History of Fiberglass is not comprehensive enough. A major disinction between insulation and textile fiber glass (and later reinforcement) should be made. Also it presents Owens Corning as the inventor of glass fibre whereas other companies and individuals have contributed to the development of glass fibre. 16 August 2006.

Although others contributed, the inventor was Owens Corning. Saying someone invented something inno way insinuates other's didn't work on it, but the they have the first patent. pschemp | talk 17:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge in History

There seesm to be a trend building among some editors to over-merge articles. One of the advantages of an online system is the ability to be modular. Keeping articles separate but linked can save a great deal of time for users. I would suggest a summary history here linked to a detailed history elsewhere. Kevin Murray 17:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Effect (or lack thereof) on Health

I specifically came here looking for info on the effects of fiberglass on health (or lack thereof) but there is no mention in the article at all and the links at the bottom seem quite old. I think, in the U.S. anyway, it is still a fairly common belief that fiberglass is harmful to your health, and some information on such (even if just information pointing out why this belief is false) should be included in the article. 124.84.185.165 11:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Density

What about the fiberglass density? I have read in other pages that is about 2.6 g/cm³, but I haven't found anything in this article. 85.50.238.186 (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Recycling solutions

68.39.192.205 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)We are looking for a solution here...

Fibreglass is not GRP, GRP is not fibreglass, GRP contains glass fibres

I agree with Pschemp - by all means (in fact please do) add a paragraph and a link in the fibreglass article to highlight a common parlance, and incorrect, use of the term, but do not merge the two articles. You might as well merge steel & concrete on the basis that the former is often used to reinforce the latter.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ban-all-sheds (talk • contribs) 16:33, 8 May 2005

On this topic, I have removed the long description of GRP-manufacturing operations to the GRP page and replaced it with a near-copy of the lead paragraph of the GRP page. --Slashme (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

GRP & FRP

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRP AND FRP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.195.197 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 6 July 2006

GRP is "glass reinforced plastic", commonly known as fiberglass. FRP is "fiber reinforced plastic", which is a broader term, including plastic reinforced with any kind of fiber. --Slashme (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

the general discussion on this page is nice, but a little hard data would be nicer

See, for example, http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fiberglass-pipes-temperature-limits-d_787.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfhavel (talk • contribs) 01:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Glass wool

Is glass wool the same thing as fiberglass? Should the former be moved into the main article?ilgiz (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Glass wool is one of two types of fiberglass. (See [1].) The difference is the way in which the two products are manufactured—you either get a "spongy" product or a continous filament. Since the overall differences between the structures of the two types are so similar, it may indeed be a good idea to merge the articles. 66.255.98.82 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

These are two entirely different materials. I believe that they should not be merged.--FocalPoint (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Section on Fiberglass Sheet Laminating Operation needs help

The section Fiberglass Sheet Laminating Operation is poorly written, uses inconsistent British spellings (e.g. mould instead of mold and fibreglass instead of fiberglass), and uses a lot of "you" phrases that sound how-to-ish. I started to work on this, but I know too little about the subject to accurately paraphrase it into encyclopedic prose. Can someone more knowledgeable help here? CosineKitty (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the section to the glass-reinforced plastic article, where it belongs. I have also added a brief discussion of GRP with a link to the main article. --Slashme (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Lowenstein" :
  • (Loewenstein, 91
  • (Loewenstein, 94)

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Logger9/Strength of glass fiber

I copied this from my discussion page.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 07:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere recently here, I saw a question about why bundles of glass fiber don't crack or fail when they are dropped the floor. Well folks: here is my first shot at the answer. I would welcome input, as the article should improve somewhat with time. I'm still trying to dig up old articles I had when I was working in fiber optics development. I would like to get it up and running ASAP (with the appropriate Wiki tag for an article under construction) so please advise ! -- logger9 (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Very good! I think you could easily include in the planned article also the strength of glass in general. I will copy this to the discussion pages of the articles Optical fiber and Fiberglass.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 07:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Chemosetting polymer vs Thermosetting polymer?

Thermosetting polymer reads as if Chemosetting polymers are a subset of Thermosetting polymers "The cure may be done through heat ... through a chemical reaction ... or irradiation." And that's what I learned in school. Has this changed? If so, Thermosetting polymer needs clarification, Plastic has got it quite wrong, and Chemosetting polymer needs to be written. If not, I guess Thermosetting polymer would still need clarification (Chemoset is a type of thermoset). --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

== Risks It might be helpful to add dangers of misuse of fiberglass, if accidentally inhaled. LastWarrior2010 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Fiberglass/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

Needs citations:

1. "Owens-Corning is still the major fiberglass producer in the market today."

   Done. DMacks (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

2. "E-glass has good insulation properties and it will maintain its properties up to 1500° F (816° C). S-glass has a high tensile strength and is stiffer than E-glass."

   Got a couple of refs for the key advantage of each (E==electrical use, S==strength). The main refs for this whole article are books that would take some time to track down. If there are any specific values that you feel block GA status, please tag them and give me a few days to make a library trip. DMacks (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

   That's sufficient for now, but it would be beneficial if the book sources can be added down the line when it's convenient for you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

3. "A recent trend in the industry is to reduce or eliminate the boron content in the glass fibers." Also, how recent?

   I can't find a direct secondary source for this, but there are several patents since 2000 for low-boron glass that claim that boron from non-low-B filters in cleanrooms leads to B contamination (targetted to semiconductor industry). Also some HEPA filters advertise low-B for similar "reduce contamination" applications. Given this is just one sentence in the article, I have removed it. DMacks (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

   I think I caught about 10% of that, but thanks for the explanation. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

   Boron volatizes out of the glass melt necessitating scrubbers to keep boron emissions below the limits set by the EPA (this is especially true for the EU). Therefore, boron free E-glass is considered "environmentally friendly", and has the added value of increased corrosion resistance. Although the dominant commodity fiber glass contains boron, zero boron formulations are being agressively marketed by some manufacturers.--NMRInsect (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

4. The "Glass-reinforced plastic" and "Uses" sections are unsourced.

 Done--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 06:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Other issues:

1. Some of the measurements have conversions, and other don't. Make sure it is uniform throughout the article.

   Think I got them all (except for in the context of a quoted sentence). DMacks (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

2. This isn't required for GA, but I tagged File:Glass tetrahedon.png to be moved to Wikimedia Commons. If you have an account consider moving the image so other language Wikipedias can use it.
3. There are a few dabs that need to be fixed.

   Fixed two. The third, insulation, really refers to all sorts of insulation (i.e., the various specific pages listed on that DAB page), and later in the article are links to each specific type. Please advise...should this term here be unlinked, or is it appropriate to link to the DAB given the context? DMacks (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

4. The citations need to include more parameters. For example, they should include author, date, title, publisher, access date, etc. The citation templates at WP:CITET can help with formatting.

 Done I hope the new reference (Ullmann's Encyclopedia) has sufficient parameters.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 20:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This article covers the topic well. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work addressing many of the the issues so far. I will leave the article on hold for one more week for the remaining issues to be addressed. If there are any questions, let me know. Keep it up with the improvements. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept

I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

i need info about partacle size of the dust that comes of fiberglass when its grinded down with abrasive paper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.71.21 (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Quartz Fiber

Is there any info on how quartz fiber is different? Cesiumfrog (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why Fiberglass is the appropriate article title

The article was at Fiberglass for 8 , was a GA with that title, and indeed, this is what the fiber is called. One person's whims do not trump 8 of consensus. The person who moved it, without consensus or discussion here on this page, also "broke a thousand links". I am happy to fix them, but it will take time and it won't be tonight. Also, many of those links were actually fixed by the move back to the original article title. The fact is that Fiberglass is called Fiberglass, and GRP is called GRP, and the fact that people use the term generically is not the fault of the fiber, nor is it enough reason to have a redirect for the fiber go to GRP. The fiber came first, was named first, and is the original and still current meaning. The notes at the tops of the articles make it CLEAR that GRP is something else, and honestly the fact that editors here prefer to take the lazy route and move the page rather than fix links with a disambig is disheartening and doing a disservice to the pursuit of factual correctness. The name of the fiber is FIBERGLASS, and always has been, since it was invented by Owens-Corning. Therefore, the article needs to be there. Having Fiberglass be a redirect to a product that is not actually called Fiberglass, is nonsensical. Additionally, not every mention of Fiberglass means GRP, it can mean insulation and a host of other products, including fiberglass fabric that is not impregnated with plastic. It is not the fault of Wikipedia that people say "fiberglass" when they mean GRP any more than it is that people say carbon fiber when they mean "carbon fiber composite". The mission of Wikipedia is to educate, not throw up our hands because the average person doesn't know that the products are different. We are here to capture and disseminate knowledge, not bury it because of ignorance/vernacular language usage.

If this was a chemistry article, and someone moved "acetone" to redirect to "nail polish remover" because that's what people usually refer to acetone as, that would never fly. Having Fiberglass redirect to GRP is just as absurd. People call what is actually steel reinforced concrete "concrete" all the time, but no one has suggested having steel redirect to reinforced concrete.

If some one is talking about a hockey stick made of Fiberglass, it isn't wrong, because it is made out of the fiber. There are other components with it, but basically, it is made out of Fiberglass the fiber. A "Brick" home is made from more than brick, but we still use the name of main material in common parlance. That doesn't mean we have to move "brick" to redirect to "brick/insulation/framing composite". A fiberglass boat IS made of glass fibers at its core, so unless you are talking about things much more technical, like the polymers you can use, saying "fiberglass" in reference to the fiber is not wrong. pschemp | talk 07:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It may help if you emphasise that point more strongly, perhaps in the lead: that, by extension, common objects are correctly called fibreglass in reference to the most significant and novel structural ingredient used in their construction (and GRP merely names the technique by which this fibreglass is used in the product). Cesiumfrog (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, there's the almost a thousand links that currently point to this article that all assume that it talks about the composite. By the move you just did, you've broken all of those; and you did the move totally without consultation.

By way of contrast, I only found a few dozen or so that used 'fiberglass' to simply mean fibers of glass (and quite a lot of those were ambiguous). As normally defined, there's two orders of magnitude more that expect the composite, and I think that the users expect the composite at fiberglass as well. And the policy says you should go with what people normally expect.

I don't think that the acetone thing is comparable.Rememberway (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A boat is not made of glass fibers, it's made of a composite that contains glass fibers, or as is commonly stated, fiberglass. A boat made of glass fibers AFAIK is completely infeasible, it would be completely not rigid, and would leak like a sieve. and sink.Rememberway (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, you have just broken about a thousand links, and probably disrupted the best part of a thousand users per day, using admin tools. What are you going to do about it?Rememberway (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Leave it be and the bots will gradually fix it (double redirects). Obviously, if a non-obscure WP article (of GA class) stood for at some name, that name was not inappropriate. Experience shows that when a subject has several names, it is important to chose one, by whatever logic or/and consensus, and stick to it. The worst things in this whole story are moving article forth and back (with a delay in between), arguing, and wasting time on the name instead of using it to develop this and other articles. Materialscientist (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not right. There's two topics, glass fibers and GRP. The term 'fiberglass' is used for both. The primary topic referred to by the term 'fiberglass' seems to be GRP. When users search for fiberglass they normally want GRP. There's about 1000 internal links that expect fiberglass to link to GRP. Pschem has taken the primary topic's most commonly used term and pointed it to glass fibers, and almost everything that now links and searches for that is getting the wrong page. The bots aren't going to fix this. Even if we bot-moved all of the internal links, the users will still be ending up on the wrong page, most of the time.Rememberway (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

When there is an overlap and ambiguity between terms (like fiberglass and GRP), we can never guess what the reader would be searching for. All we can do is to give options (via dabs or diambigs, for example). BTW, the GRP article is in a poor shape.. Materialscientist (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, we know what they're looking for by the access patterns, the traffic stats; and also the way they're linked. Contrary to what pschem says, people don't link from boat to fiberglass expecting to get the individual fibers, they expect to reach the composite page, the properties of the individual fibers are of little consequence to a boat. It's all rather unfortunate, but according to the policy, fiberglass should either be a disambiguation page or link to the primary topic, which in this case is GRP. And given that we have so many links that point to fiberglass, a disambiguation page is pretty much out of the question.Rememberway (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your reply suggests you have all info on the access pattern and know how to interpret it. Good if you have and do, but I (by default, no slight) don't think so. In a stable state (before moves and all the recent server problems) the major access routes were two, and were roughly equal [2] [3], but again, it is hard to relate a search term and access click to the interest in the article content. Materialscientist (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think 75% or more of those were landing on the wrong page, and then having to navigate across to where they wanted to be on the GRP page.Rememberway (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So after the split, look what happened: Glass (fiber) and GRPSo only a few hundred per day on average are interested in the fibers, and it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of those jumped across after reading the fiberglass page first for extra info to understand GRP better. So we're looking at about a 4:1 ratio. And the link situation seems to be if anything even more pronounced.Rememberway (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, the dust has settled, and yes, the stats did what I expected, the number of hits on this article jumped sharply when you did this move from glass (fiber), but the number of hits on the glass-reinforced plastic page hasn't gone down much at all[4], even though it's harder to find now. The old glass (fiber) page just wasn't that hard to find, so it seems unlikely that they were failing to find it if they wanted it.

So I'm pretty sure that people are landing on this page, and discovering it's the wrong one for them, and navigating across to the composite page; and most of the hits are looking for that other page. The problem is that the composite really is the primary topic for them, not the individual fibers here; and there's all the internal links as well we have, somewhat less than a thousand, that now very definitely point to the wrong place.Rememberway (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

So I propose to move it back really. :-( Rememberway (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Still the wrong title for "glass fibers"

This seems to be another case of special interests on Wikipedia (in this case; "specialists,") insisting their world view (in this case; jargon) overrides everybody else.

I'm starting a new section because being new to this discussion I was disoriented by the other article "Why Fiberglass is the appropriate article title" which was in a state of flux, and now "the dust has settled," some arguments have changed. (I'm still unclear what the so-called original fiberglass title was.) I'm one of those who came here misdirected (from a link in epoxy,) looking for the composite construction material; fiberglass.

But I discover, no, this article is about glass fibers. Worse, I'm then insulted by being "educated" by by this ex cathedra proclamation, quote:

composite material called glass-reinforced plastic (GRP), popularly known as "fiberglass".

Only we little ignorant people of the masses call it "fiberglass," so just ignore. Besides the offensive tone, that claim is "popularly known as;" garbage. Called "glass-reinforced plastic (GRP)" by whom!!!???? Before today, I never heard of glass-reinforced plastic, nor GRP. What has happened is this article has seemingly been hijacked by well intended elitists, seemingly of the chemistry and industry (marketing?) persuasions.

fibreglass Oxford English Dictionary
fiberglass- Cambridge Advanced Learner's

google boat hull fiberglass About 9,400,000 results
google boat hull GRP About 1,520,000 results

Normally if we mean the fibers we specify, as "fiberglass insulation" "fiber optics," "fiberglass mesh" or "fiberglass cloth." But when we talk about the construction composite we say "the boat hull is made of fiberglass." "Corvettes are made of fiberglass."

What I did not see mentioned in the other article is the fact that word definitions change, and the ONLY recognized driving this change is usage frequency. Much of the counter-argument relies explicitly on the logical fallacy argumentum ad antiquitatem, which asserts that something is right or good -simply because it is old, or because that's the way it's always been.

Nobody except these "specialists" have ever heard of glass-reinforced plastic (GRP). But everybody knows what glass fibers are. This (implied) argument directly addresses Wikipedia policy. "GRP" is in violation. And again, everybody knows what fiberglass is. Where is the problem!?

Here's an idea! Let's stop huffing and snorting and just get real.
--69.238.90.167 (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

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: Move Fiberglass → Glass fiber and move Glass-reinforced plastic → Fiberglass - "Fiberglass" most commonly refers to the composite and "Glass fiber" most commonly refers to the fiber. Neelix (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Fiberglass → glass (fiber)
• Glass-reinforced plastic → Fiberglass

– Either material is known as fiberglass, but the composite is much more commonly referred to as that, as it is a versatile multi-purpose construction material used in many industries, whereas the glass fibers themselves have relatively few niche uses (mostly widely as an insulation material). Internal to the Wikipedia about 800 or more internal links point to fiberglass and analysis shows nearly all of them expecting fiberglass to be the composite, which supports this as the primary usage. -Rememberway (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As a result of several previous page-moves, I don't put much faith in that in-universe (what-links-here for "fiberglass") WP:COMMONNAME analysis. For example, many of the what-links-here hits for the "Glass (fiber)" page use the term "fiberglass" to name that link or appear to use the fiber meaning rather than the rigid-plastic meaning. DMacks (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure, neither usage is incorrect; they're both listed in major dictionaries. It's just that the fibers of glass usage is much rarer, so the fiber reinforced plastic becomes the primary topic. -Rememberway (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, since most people think of "fiberglass" as the composite material, this article needs to be re-named/moved. As noted above, when "fiberglass" refers to fiber it's typically used as an adjective, a modifier of the real subject, as; "fiberglass insulation" or "fiberglass cloth." And when "fiberglass" refers to the rigid composite it's typically used for a physical substance, the subject, as; "crack in the fiberglass," "fiberglass hull." Outside of specialized context "fiberglass" as a fiber simply isn't. "As the winds shrieked, he dodged a big, flying piece of fiberglass," no context; yet implies only one thing. Not cloth or fiber insulation. (I can't find the argument in DMacks post, only a statement of disagreement.)

No doubt within their context the "specialists" jargon is best. And it's only natural that being specialists actually working with glass fibers, they feel entitled, special, more correct than the general public. But word definitions don't work that way. One's disagreement with a definition has utterly zero effect on it's meaning. Oops. Except here in Wikipedia, one of it's weaknesses.
--69.238.90.167 (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

That's why I didn't write "support" or "oppose" or anything like that. I was only disputing one given argument, not disputing the whole of the rest of that comment or giving my own stance on the move-req itself. DMacks (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support, but the destination of this article should be glass fiber or fiberglass (fiber). Powers ^T 20:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, glass fiber is used for the composite as well, but a lot less, so that wouldn't be infeasible, we could do that. What does anyone else think? -Rememberway (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds about right. And the composite should be titled "fiberglass." And "glass-reinforced plastic (GRP)" should not be a title, but an alternate description of the composite. (Sorry if my frustration shows, we can't seem to retrieve the traditional def of Dark Ages as a nasty time from Wikipedia's extremely dangerous Memory Hole now owned there by religious vested interests on a mission from God.)
--69.238.90.167 (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

• Oppose moving the reinforced composite material "fibreglass/fiberglass" is the pink insulation that goes into homes. The stuff used on Corvettes and Yachts is less likely than that found in homes. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The use of "fiberglass" to refer to the composite material is much more common than referring to the fibers themselves. If for some reason there is no consensus on the point about the composite material being the primary topic, then per WP:TWODABS Fiberglass should be a dab page. In either case the article about glass fibers currently at Fiberglass needs to be moved to glass (fiber) or (better) fiberglass (fiber). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment there are three pages, not two. fiberglass insulation is also called just "Fiberglass", and is more logically the primary article than either the composite or the fibers themselves. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• 'Oppose proposal as written, per lack of strong evidence that this is the most common use of this term. Support a DAB page at fiberglass, given three distinct meanings of the term, of which at least two are likely commonly-used (insulation and plastic-composite). DMacks (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011 (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.

History of fiberglass production

I came here looking for basic information on when fiberglass was first produced, and any background on how it was developed. Was very surprised not to find that on the page -- the project I'm on doesn't need it badly, but I'd say someone with the knowledge to do so should add that kind of information. 184.74.55.64 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely an information-hole there. If you come across any info while working on your project, feel free to add it. DMacks (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)