Talk:Biodegradable polythene film

I noticed that you have deleted my article on Biodegradable/degradable Polythene film and redirected it to the Bioplastic but Bioplastic doesnt contain enough information about polythene film and degradable options to polythene film. I would like to see my article here again or give me the valid reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manthanfadia (talk • contribs).

Article name

This article needs to be moved, either to Biodegradable polythene film, or degradable polythene film. Articles should not have slashes in their titles unless there is a slash in the name of the article's subject, as is the case with PS/2 connectors.

Even though the subject of this article may be referred to by two different names, we need to mention this in the article, not in the article's title, as the subject is not called "Biodegradable/degradable polythene film". It is called Biodegradable in some areas, degradable in others.

In cases such as these, we must follow guidelines. color is not at colour/color, honour is not at honor/honour, American football is not at American football/football, e.t.c.

I don't personally care which it is moved to, but seeing as the rest of the article mostly uses "biodegradable", I will move it to that location if there's no objection here in, say, 12 hours or so. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Biodegradable polythene film would be fine with me. Cardamon 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

4 Polyethylene paragraphs & other problems

In the lead section there are 4 heavily redundant paragraphs about Polyethylene, ethylene, ethene, PE etc. There should maybe be only a wikilink to one relevant article. The lead section has material which should be placed elsewhere.

i don't want to tread on any toes here, since this is obviously a contentious subject, but somebody who has an interest in this article please clean it up. Please see wp:mos David Woodward (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Article contradictions

I have reverted the article to remove three edits by user User:Junket76.

The first and major of these edits, makes several claims about PET being actually biodegradable, while the main article claims the opposite. These claims are only supported by one source which does not appear to be from a peer-reviewed journal, but more like a school assignment. It also makes several unreferenced claims about using starch and potatoes as materials for plastic bags having a large impact on world food sources and starvation.

The second edit is a simple spelling correction, which I have retained.

The third edit is a link to a commercial site, with no mentions of the notability of such website. This was mislabeled as a minor edit.

Because of these reasons, I believe that these edits (except for the second one) are inappropriate for this article, at least without quality sources. Please feel free to discuss.