Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polymers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Polymers
WikiProject icon Wikipedia:WikiProject Polymers is within the scope of WikiProject Polymers which aims to improve the coverage of polymer-related articles in Wikipedia. If you are interested, you may visit the project page and join with us. Feel free to leave messages at the project talk page. WikiProject icon



Can anyone find a suitable image to use as a logo on templates for this project? The best I can see so far (and that's not saying much) is the straight-chain/branched chain image in Spanish and Catalan wikipedias. Physchim62 11:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've done some searching and I haven't found much that would be suitable. Ideally, it would be great if we can find something that would really excite someone into learning more about polymers. Still searching... --HappyCamper 12:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

New stub logo proposal[edit]

The typical Wikipedia stub logo is small. For example, the chemistry one is 30 x 30 pixels and larger than some others. It's really hard to find something easily recognizable as a polymer symbol and still fit into such a small square. A picture of a box or a part made out of a polymer is not readily recognizable as a symbol for a polymer. However, I have made a 30 x 30 pixel symbol which we can use for polymer stubs. Here it is: Polymers Logo svg.svg The R group is larger than the H atoms because 1) a small R in those kind of pixel sizes is hard to make legible while a small H is easily legible, 2) the R groups in the molecules are physically larger than the H atoms. I've given it a light yellow background instead of white so that its logo border will be distinguishable, yet not take up an extra layer of pixels all around the border. I can make a different light-colored background such as light blue, red, green, purple, or orange. What do you think? H Padleckas 14:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Even fairly small images can look good as long as one doesn't try to cram too much detail in them. For example, here's a quick stick model of polyethene I made: Polyethene stick model.png I think it would make a nice logo, at least until something better comes along. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I prefer the yellow logo over the stick figure, although the larger R sort of looks a bit weird. Perhaps a little circle around it would be better? I don't really mind which one we adopt - after all, this WikiProject is very small, and the important part is that we all have fun contributing on the topics we really like. --HappyCamper 03:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I like them both! I had thought of doing a repeating monomer type logo back in the summer, but never got round to it (graphics aren't my strong point). A syntactic polypropylene would look good on a talkpage logo, but not for stubs (too much detail). Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 05:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I can make the R smaller, but putting a legible R in a circle would be tough given the small scale and limited number of pixels. I could probably turn the R into a solid-filled circle. Does anybody have a preference on the background color before I change the R and upload? If the stick figure is chosen, I would prefer to give it a light background color, such as a cream color, so that the logo can be distinguished as a small rectangular illustration. I can make that modification and upload the modified stick figure. Any thoughts? H Padleckas 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
That's fine with me, if you feel it'd look better that way. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I modified the Polymers stub logo to make the R smaller to be consistent with the H atoms, and I uploaded the modified logo into WikiCommons. Both the older and the newer versions are available in WikiCommons now. H Padleckas 14:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Other ideas[edit]

Some other ideas: Nanotube & Polymer [1], Ball & Stick [2] [3], Dendrimer [4], Syndiotactic polymer [5]. If you would want me to help, I could try doing the first ball & stick or the syndiotactic one from scratch in powerpoint (due to copyright issues)... then resize it & save as png. Personally, I like the nanotube one, but it's beyond my skill. But if it's just choosing between these two logos that are proposed, the CH2CHR one looks slightly better. Nathaniel 14:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of two (or more) strands of syndiotactic PP at about 100px resolution for a talk page template. I will move my vote to the monomer repeat design for the stub on practical grounds—it fits better with a line of text above than the PE logo, and stub templates are not always placed by experts in page layouts, as I know from WP:Chem! Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 14:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
syndiotactic polypropene
How about this one on the right? It's actually just one curved strand, but I've artistically (...u r quite an artist !)cropped it so that it looks like two. ;-) I've made it transparent so that one can set the background color in HTML. Note that the background strand is actually semitransparent; that's a feature, not a bug. PyMOL calls it a "depth cue". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I just uploaded what I feel is a nicer view of the same molecule. If you're seeing a version where the strands don't cross, please refresh the page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I like this one. It's quite nice, but for practical reasons, you may have to make it smaller. Incidentally, this would be nice to put up on the syndiotactic or polypropylene pages. Nathaniel 02:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Done. I put it on both pages, even though the polypropylene article already has two images. Others can judge whether it's worth the space it takes there. As for that size, you can certainly scale it to any size you want on the page; I made sure the original is big enough that it scales down nicely. However, I'm afraid 100px is getting close to the smallest legible size, for example at 30px it's just a blue splotch: Syndiotactic polypropene.png To make it look better at such small sizes it would have to be cropped, and even then I'm not sure if it would help much. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be better to just have one strand? From a cursory glance, it looks like DNA instead of a representative polymer (but then again, DNA is "technically" a polymer...) --HappyCamper 00:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
What about the following one? It is the same used in the banner. The problem is that this one is a .png type.
Vanischenu mTalk 19:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Or this;
···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 18:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I feel like the current image (the banner, not the stub template) is a little too rigid looking. It sort of downplays the intrinsically dynamic nature of most polymer chains. If you give me a few days I might be able to come up with something. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 12:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh wow, just realized how old this discussion is. Is this project currently active? (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 12:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I'd like to help out with some polymer entries. Before I start, is there a standard format for referencing for chemistry/polymer articles? I did a search and found that numbered citations don't work so well with Wikipedia, although that is standard for most chemistry journals that I read. Is (author,date) commonly used?

Dflanagan 10:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, we do not have a standard for citations, so please feel free to add references in whichever manner you feel most comfortable with. Since this is a Wiki, these can always be corrected to a particular standard. There is this page which lists a method of adding references. There is also a numbering scheme which can be used - check out Template talk:Ref to see how references within pages is done.
Actually this is a very good question...maybe we should spend some time to standardize references. Ideas? --HappyCamper 15:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
In WP Chemistry we do include author (initials OK for first names) and year (not usually full date). Many people follow the American Chemical Society format, which you can see at Wittig reaction. For other examples see hydrochloric acid. With our recent FA (acetic acid) an unusual format ended up being used that is not the norm for chemistry articles. Walkerma 05:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:CITE is the main guideline for referencing. I stress the word guideline, as you will find many different styles used in articles... Wikipedia:Reference explains how to use automatic numbering of references. I agree with Martin that we usually use ACS style for chemistry-related articles, as it is all but indistinguishable from APA style recommended generally on Wikipedia. Harvard style (author, year) is also used, particularly on biological articles, and no-one is going to criticise you for adding references this way to chemistry articles. As HappyCamper says, the worst that would happen is that someone has to come along and change the style later, but this is much easier than finding the refs in the first place! Happy editing, Physchim62 (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project[edit]

Hi guys,

I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, and we are looking to publish a paper/CD/DVD version of Wikipedia. We're looking for articles rated as A-Class or B-Class using these criteria which should be familiar to folks as the criteria used at WP:Chem. You already have this extensive list of polymer articles, do you have any idea of the status/assessment of these articles? Would any of them be classed by you as A-Class or B-Class or even just as good articles? I also know of this list, are the assessments here still valid? Please leave your comments below.

Speaking now as a WP:Chem member do you still plan to take control of that table of polymers? Henry's proposal last year to do this did receive support. If you do this, will you be leaving it where it is or moving it? Thanks a lot. Walkerma 05:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...the only one I can think of right now is Polythiophene - written almost entirely by Dflanagan :-) If anything, I think this article is probably the best we have so far that is related to polymers. The other ones are still more or less stub like. --HappyCamper 01:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Polythiophene is certainly VERY nice, a definite A-Class! I'd like to see a photo of it, then it could be an FA IMHO (good publicity for this project?). I will also include natural rubber, polyethylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride and starch as B-Class, these all need a lot of work but provide a basic article - unless you think any of these are too bad to include. Please feel free to edit/update our polymer listings as you see fit. Thanks! Walkerma 05:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of polymer? Walkerma 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs some work...lots of basic articles and definitions are really scattered and not very well organized. I was thinking of working on a set of templates to do this, but I haven't got around that yet. Activity outside of Wikipedia is picking up again... --HappyCamper 04:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


I know very little about polymers (or chemistry in general), but I would like to ask project participants to ensure that the major uses of different polymers gets mentioned at the top of articles and that the polymer also get categorized under its different uses. My interest in polymers comes from the woodworking side. For example, Phenol formaldehyde resin is linked from Plywood, but there is no mention of its use as an Adhesive or Glue in the article, or anything about its properties. Thank you for considering my request. Luigizanasi 22:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged. When I get the chance I will try and update the articles to reflect this. It might be a while because at the moment it seems that we are stretched quite thinly. But I will keep it in the back of my mind at least. --HappyCamper 04:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I apologise , I have very little scientific knowledge but would like if I may to ask?: Would it be possible to use ETFE in Arctic conditions? For instance to house equipment and housing for engineers and scientists? I have a project in the very early planning stage. David Barr......2150 27.02.2014 (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was looking into Sodium Polyacrylate or SAP, the stuff used in baby diapers. I searched just about everywhere trying to figure out the best way to remove the SAP from the cotton in baby diapers. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMJ4444 (talkcontribs) 23:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Naming suggestion[edit]

I suggest that articles on polymers of multi-word monomers get parentheses, for example Polyvinyl chloride to Poly(vinyl chloride). That's the way it's printed in my chemistry book, and it makes more sense than "polyvinyl chloride" which looks like it should be parsed "(polyvinyl) (chloride)". Any objections? —Keenan Pepper 17:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be rather awkward to do so, in my mind. Even in some publications, "polyvinyl chloride" is used, not "poly(vinyl chloride)". The latter is used more for pedagogical reasons, in my mind. --HappyCamper 20:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I may make polymer names including parentheses such as Poly(vinyl chloride) redirect to the version without parentheses Polyvinyl chloride, which is more commonly used for many older polymers.
According to the purple book by the IUPAC, poly(vinyl chloride) is the correct name and should be used. But for some older and commonly used (co)polymers, a simplified nomenclature or trivial names may be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Polybutaden, featured article in es:[edit]

Hi all. I am pleased to announce that the article Polybutadenyo (polybutadeene) has been voted featured article in the Spanish Wikipedia. I was the main contributor to the article and tried to give it a structure that can later be applied as well to other industrial polymers. My next target is Polishtreeno. If some other Spanish-speaking pollymarryest is around there, you may want to translate these articles into English. I would gladly help but can't do the work myself by now.

We have a couple other featured articles in the Spanish Polymers Wikiproject: Moldeo por inyección (injection molding) and Efecto térmico de memoria (memory thermal effect).

--Hispalois 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I will see if I can get organized to translate the material into English. --HappyCamper 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"All is well that ens well" - Comedy - The Bard !  :-)

Moral of the story : "Any attempt to backteach the language teacher is a return to the language-ignorance " — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Project directory[edit]

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER 03:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Wikipedia Day Awards[edit]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this project still alive?[edit]

Hi all. I joined this project last July. Since then, no new member has joined, the discussion page does has not discussed polymers for months and the only modification to the main project page has been the addition of a single link. So I have to wonder: is this project still alive?? --Hispalois 22:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not. After adding a comment below, I observed that the main project page has been tagged as "inactive", and that tag has not been removed. I'm looking around for other WikiProjects that cover polymers. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals, which I just now confirmed is an active project. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi, for all those chemists who are active on IRC, Rifleman_82 and I have set up a channel on IRC for chemistry on wikipedia. You can find us here: the wikichem channel. To be able to talk with other online chemists there, you need an IRC program, like mIRC, the Chatzilla plugin for firefox, Opera (built in), and there will probably be more programs out there. At the moment User:Rifleman_82 and I are the 'keepers/moderators' of the channel, but anyone can enter and talk! Hope to see you there! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A new "nonflammable, high-strength, lightweight thermoplastic fluoropolymer composite material"[edit]

Hi. I work a bit in WikiProject Spaceflight and, in the process of adding and linking information about a new rocket engine today, I ran into a relatively new polymer material called nonburnite. I found one Wikipedia article that briefly mentioned it, so I added a redir page for Nonburnite that would take the reader to the page I found. I also did a bit of googling and found an abstract summarizing it thusly: "a nonflammable, high-strength, lightweight thermoplastic fluoropolymer composite material, trademarked NonburniteTM, which is suitable for making reusable, reliable, low cost cryogenic tanks and structures for space flight service." I have added that quote, plus the rest of the abstract, to the nonburnite redir Talk page. It appears that NASA is funding some of this research, so have added the redir page to the spaceflight wikiproject. Perhaps it is of interest to your wikiproject as well.

So why did I write this? I have no idea what makes a new material become of interest to the materials science folks, or when it would be sufficiently notable for its own article, but did think I should draw this to someone's attention. I could not find a WikiProject Materials Science project, so thought I would just mention it here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Since this WikiProject on Polymers appears to be inactive, I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. N2e (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Polymers banner[edit]

This WikiProject could use a WikiProject Polymers banner, like many other WikiProjects have. It's done by making a Template. H Padleckas (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. See Template:WikiProject Polymers. Is simple and only describes about the need of images and/or infoboxes. It is virtually impossible to rate articles when the project is almost inactive. What other parameters shall we include? Shall we start placing it in the target articles? As a test I am placing it at this project talk page. We may replace the image when a better and suitable one is found. Vanischenu mTalk 10:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks and well done for making the Template:WikiProject Polymers banner template. We will expand it when we get a chance to include article importance and rating. H Padleckas (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Shall we assign a bot the task to place the banner. If so, we may discuss the topics associated with this project. (The categories listed currently at the project page is only a historical version.) Some subcategories contains contains totally unrelated articles to this project. We may require to pick them out. There is a great advantage for placing them manually, we will get connected to the article and will find out whether the article is quickly improvable. Since we have only little number and majority are stubs, I think manual placement of banner is good.
What should be the main article of this project: Polymer or Polymer chemistry, Polymer science?. Currently (as of 10:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)), the banner takes polymer as its main article and the other two listed here needs improvement.
I would like to bring into your attention that I have created separate categories for articles needing pictures(1) and molecular structures(2). This is done for easiness. One with a good structure drawing software can easily fulfill the latter.Vanischenu mTalk 21:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
As of now, there are 188 articles in Category:WikiProject Polymers articles. I have tried to include all of the general polymer articles and synthetic polymer articles in this Category by placing the banner on the applicable Talk pages, but I have not gone through the natural polymers yet. You can do that if you like. I don't think a bot is needed at this time. After having looked at the Polymer, Polymer chemistry, and Polymer science articles, I conclude at this time, that the Polymer article is the best and most suited to be the main article of Category:WikiProject Polymers articles page.
Finally, you can take a look at my recommendation on the Category talk:Organic polymers page for consideration. H Padleckas (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for polymer infobox[edit]

Shall we extent {{Chembox}} (separately) for our project. This would be helpful for the vast majority of the simple polymers like rubbers, Nylons, polyester, polyolefins, fluoropolymers, and many more! Please list here those entries to be inserted. What about the following?

  • Tg (range and/or avg.)
  • column for monomers used (different columns for different methods)
  • tradenames (W/ company)
  • columns for the type of polymerization undergone (addition/condesation, step/chain growth and homo/copolymer, thermo/setting/elastomer/fibre, natural/semi/synthetic)

Please insert some more entries too. Vanischenu mTalk 19:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some polymer articles have infoboxes of their own, different from the Chemicals infobox. Those should be reviewed to see how they can be standardized and improved. Eventually, I will try to find some examples. H Padleckas (talk)
Yeah, a similar one was present in PVC. Thank you so much. I added a chembox to it and now they looks fine together, except that the caption of table is larger than heading of Chembox (see).
  • Chembox uses PubChem Compound ID. In PubChem Compound, most polymers doesnot have an ID and the few remaining ones that have ID redirects into its monomers. However, we do have an ID on PubChem Substance. So in the Polymer's own infobox we can put it in. (PubChem call the former ID as CID and the latter as SID). Vanischenu mTalk 13:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 • What about Resin identification code? Though they apply to only a few (plastics only), they are important. Shall we include them too Vanischenu mTalk 13:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC) modified on 10:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Molecular mass of repeat unit: Will be a constant, though accuracy and precision may vary from the referenced sources.Vanischenu mTalk 10:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Where to place polymer banknote?[edit]

Polymer banknote does not belong to any category related to polymers. Where should it be included? We have a category named category:plastics applications. Should a category named category:polymers applications be created (just for 1 article and 1 sub-category in it, though)? ···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 21:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Updating: It has been added[1] to category:polymers by Rifleman 82 ···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 01:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Heat deflection temperature: nonsense sentence[edit]

In the article, there is a sentence in which something seems to be missing: "This is similar to the test procedure defined in the ISO Limitations that are associated with the determination of the HDT is that the sample is not thermally isotropic and, thick samples in particular, will contain a temperature gradient." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I hope it is fixed now by inserting a period and a line between the words "ISO" and "Limitations".(here). Thank you.···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 16:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Carbon (fiber)[edit]

Is Carbon (fiber) really a polymer? The repeating unit is C after all. Hcobb (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Injection molding good article review[edit]

I've nominated Injection molding for Good Article review. I'd love it if somebody would do what they could to get it reviewed. Thanks! --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 17:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Any research on toxicity of EVA or whether it is a carcinogen?[edit]

Just trying to get a bit more info about ethylene vinylacetate copolymers as far as what their toxicity is when exposed to the human body, or if they are a known carcinogen. If anyone has info about this, I think it would be extremely helpful/important to include it on the Wiki page for the chemical itself.Dev0023 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

One example MSDS below
So no, the EVA copolymers look pretty good: the warnings are about the trace of vinyl acetate that's a residue in the product when shipped (and may well disappear during processing)
Gravuritas (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Working with IUPAC Polymer group on cleaning up definitions[edit]

In the coming weeks I will be collaborating with members of the IUPAC committee responsible for polymer definitions. We are considering placing a definition box into a limited number of articles to highlight the IUPAC definition for that topic. You can see an example at Dispersity. However, my background is mainly in organic small molecules. Would any members here be willing to work with me on helping this to work well? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If I've read this correctly, the idea is to get IUPAC directly involved in standardizing wikipedia's use of polymer definitions? Sounds like a neat idea. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 19:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly it. They are sensitive to our systems and processes, and they want to work with us, rather than just dumping their definitions into articles willy-nilly.Walkerma (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of dispersity, PDI is (or at least, was) generally defined as Mw/Mn where Mw is the weight (or mass) average molecular weight and Mn is the number average molecular weight. The IUPAC link [6] seemingly corroborates this definition. Yet the template uses "Mm" in place of Mw for some unspecified reason. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 19:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for catching that discrepancy! I simply copied & pasted the details from the article into the box. I used the details from this image, and which was uploaded last year (as a test file) by one of their team. I'll ask them about that, hopefully today.
Thank you also for cleaning up the article a bit. It's not my specialisation, so I hesitate to rewrite too much, but I can see that this article needs a lot of work. I never like it when an article has "Overview" as a section header - isn't that point of the lede? Also, there is a lot of repetition in the article. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, I just spoke on Skype with one of the committee; it sounds as if it should be Mw, but they want to check and consult before we go changing things. They're also sending us a list of about 100 definitions that we can look at. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, confirmed, you're right that they want it to be Mw. Thanks for catching my error. Walkerma (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoa there... as it stands, the lede and the body of dispersity contradict each other. Our long-standing tradition has been to be descriptive, not prescriptive. I'm concerned we're straying too far from what polymer scientists commonly use. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I was a little concerned about that aspect myself, which is why I stopped short of revising anything else. The lede seems to imply that the remainder of the article is merely historical, but, depreciated or otherwise, terms such as polydispersity, monodispersity, etc are still very common in recent literature. More common, and therefore seemingly more notable, than the preferred IUPAC redefinitions. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 18:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we should certainly follow our practice of following "common practice" - the IUPAC definition is supposed to be there for reference. In fact I mainly just reformatted the IUPAC definition, and I included IUPAC terms in the definition words as I thought appropriate. If I overstepped the norms, please feel free to amend my edits. However, that contradiction has been there for months, I think; that's why I felt that the article needed a good rewrite. I'm totally fine with you rewriting the lede to talk about PDI up front if that's appropriate for the article, but I would like to see the IUPAC recommendations included. (I would make the changes myself, but I'm not a polymer expert!) Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like we're on the same page for the most part. The IUPAC definition should definitely be there, as should the common usage. We just want to make sure we clearly indicate which is being refered to in a particular section. That requires a substantial rewrite of the body of the article, which I don't have time for right this moment. Also, I'm not strictly speaking a polymer expert either. Though I do use a lot of polymer size and MW determination techniques in my research, so I'm not unfamiliar with the subject. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 21:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I added IUPAC boxes to the following:

I will try to expand the stubs as I get a chance; please feel free to pitch in! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've been working with some academics, and they have contributed the following articles:

These are original content, written to explain what the terms mean in some detail. Walkerma (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Galaith Vandalized?[edit] Discovery In 1897, the Hangover, Germany mass printing press owner Wilhelm Krische was commissioned to develop an alternative to blackboards.[1] The resultant horn-like plastic made from the milk protein casein was developed in cooperation with the former Nazi leader Adolph, Hitler (1846–1940). ????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:A:AA4:0:0:0:2 (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed now. As you suspected, it was vandalism. Somehow it had gone unnoticed for almost a week. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 20:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Paintability of Various Polymers. Sufficient Interest to Include?[edit]

I just looked up‎ to find out if so-called "bead board" (expanded polystyrene foam board), sold in the U.S. in 4' x 8' sheets and various other shapes such as beams for home construction (for use as insulation and non-weight bearing architectural and ornamental design elements) is paintable. I don't find this information and feel that the desire to know this might be a reason why others such as homeowners and hobbyists might search these terms. So many people these days are involved in home improvement projects and this is a common building material. Seems to me it would be of value to tell consumers as much as possible about the practical use and properties of such products if, when and where they are mentioned in individual articles. Just a thought. Anyone agree?
Mykstor (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Paintable with what? is the problem. Some paints won't adhere to some surfaces; some will absorb and look horrible. Some will dissolve the surface; some will look fine and then unpeel when damp; some will encourage the growth of cracks and weaken the object. You're asking for a massive look-up table which will then have further problems because the table can only say 'an acrylic emulsion in water' is OK on some or other substrate, but the guy at the paint shop is going to ask "Is Dulux Interior matt OK?" I suggest it's impractical.
Gravuritas (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Organic_semiconductor#Organic_semiconductor.23Merger_proposal over merging organic electronics into organic semiconductor. I thought that it may be of interest to your WikiProject. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"Molecular mass" (crosspost from WikiProject Chemistry)[edit]

Could someone help clean up this article? It's quite sad that something as essential as molecular weight has such a poor quality article to describe it. My immediate concerns are summarized on the article talk page. Thanks. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 10:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Copper hydride[edit]

Copper hydride has been classed as being part of the polymer project- are you happy with this? Axiosaurus (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Specific viscosity[edit]

is listed as a desirable page to start. However, I've done a very wide range of technological things with liquids and I've never come across anyone using it. I googled it and and found a dictionary definition of it as the ratio of the viscosity of a liquid to a standard liquid (e.g. water). One could therefore conceive of uses for it, but if it'sonly ever going to be a dictionary definition, I suggest its dropped from the to-do list. Gravuritas (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Origins of the word Microfiber[edit]

I am writing an article on the origins of common decorating terms, and it's a mystery as to where this word came from. Dupont invented Nylon and Microfiber, but I am not sure they invented the word. As its quite plain and descriptive, perhaps there is no answer, but if someone knows, please add it to the Microfiber page for us. Ningishzidda (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Bioadhesive[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Bioadhesive, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Smart rubber page is hard to read: Smart rubber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

I do not actually know anything about smart rubber, but the page on it is harder to read than any other wikipedia page that I have read. Is this the right place to report that? (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Katie

Hi Katie, It's a good a place as any to bring it up. I've appended the section heading to include a link to the article in question, so people know exactly which article you're referring to. I tend to agree with your assessment. It seems to leap pretty much directly into jargon without providing any context for the reader; the last section seems to actually be a step-by-step synthesis route; and the references are formatted oddly, specifically no inline citations are used. I'm not overly familiar with smart rubber myself, but perhaps someone else will be able to help improve it. This particular wiki-project is somewhat underpopulated at the moment, so I'm not sure how many people will actually see this. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
In fact, the very first sentence in that article ( "Smart rubber is a polymer that is able to "heal" when torn.") is problematic. You can't mechanically tear a single polymer chain on the molecular level, as implied by that statement. Most synthetic rubbers are polymeric materials, but the mechanical properties are in the bulk. They're certainly not due to a single chain. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 22:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Well. I took a stab at it. I've also cross-posted this to WikiProject Chemistry where it will hopefully get a bit more attention. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 22:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society of Chemistry - Wikimedian in Residence[edit]

Hi folks,

I've just started work as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry. Over the coming year, I'll be working with RSC staff and members, to help them to improve the coverage of chemistry-related topics in Wikipedia and sister projects.

You can keep track of progress at Wikipedia:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry, and use the talk page if you have any questions or suggestions.

How can I and the RSC support your work to improve Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"carbon fiber"[edit]

The usage of Carbon fiber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:carbon (fiber) -- (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"carbon fiber"[edit]

The usage of Carbon fiber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:carbon (fiber) -- (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Polymers WikiProject[edit]

Does this project actually have any active members anymore? (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 14:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take the dead silence as a "no". (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 14:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello I just dropped by because this is a field I was active in a few years ago but women seem to be airbrushed from history. Please can I nominate my polymer chemist colleague Dr Silvia Villarroya for inclusion in the list of polymer chemists. Perhaps a new list might be created of up and coming contemporary polymer chemists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Nylon (brand) vs Polyamide (chemical technical term)[edit]

I'm sure Nylon is a Brand Name of DoPond and not a chemical technical term. It is Polyamide. So I would change the name of the article regarding Polyamide 11, Polyamide 46 and redirected it vise versa. --Paul HT (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Geopolymer concrete[edit]

Will some previously uninvolved editor please review and comment on Draft:Geopolymer concrete. Should it be accepted into article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I saw that Polyquaternium is within the scope of WikiProject Polymers. I started to gather information on Polyquaternium-7 and created a draft. Is this of use for the WikiProject Polymers? Can you help me improving it? --Magistra Sylvia (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

3D printing filament article[edit]

Hi all

I just created 3D printing filament, I'm a keen 3D printing hobbyist but don't know much about the plastics being used, if people could take a look it would be very much appreciated :)


--John Cummings (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Expert help at Gel point[edit]

Hello polymers experts (is there anyone there?) Would someone please take a look at Gel point. It's horrible (not a WP policy phrase), and has been horrible for some time. I think it started to go wrong here. To my eyes the article doesn't actually explain what "gel point" is. Would it be reasonable to roll back the article to the Revision as of 21:31, 17 March 2013 ? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)