Talk:Renaissance Wax

Museums Low‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Museum C‑class Low‑importance

	This article relates to the British Museum. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one, as needed.British MuseumWikipedia:GLAM/British MuseumTemplate:WikiProject British MuseumBritish Museum-related articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Consider move[edit]

Should this article be renamed and expanded to Microcrystalline wax for which there's presumably ample sourcing and additional information? @Andy Dingley: SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expected that to be a red link. Since the other article already exists, I think this one should be merged. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for several reasons:

Microcrystalline waxes are an ingredient, Renaissance Wax is a usable product. As there is (AFAIK) still only one brand on the market, it's unclear if this has yet become a generic name for the product, but it's mostly treated as one.
Microcrystalline wax is one component material, but they're not the only ingredient. Like most prepared waxes, they also need a variety of solvents and emulsifiers to make them usable. Microwaxes aren't usable in the same way in their raw state - they're impossible to apply.
Reading the literature you will find references to "a coat of microcrystalline wax was applied" etc. However you can't actually do this. Given a brick of microwax, it's simply impractical to persuade it to become a coating - it won't spread. This is why, even though I have kilos of microwaxes in the workshop, I still find myself buying Renaissance (which isn't cheap).
Microwaxes have a very broad range of uses. To merge this article would be to either unbalance that article, or to diminish our treatment here, which is after all still a WP:NOTABLE product.
COMMONNAME would be firmly for Renaissance Wax.

Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. I'm not sure that the fact it's a usable compound of microcrystalline wax would disqualify Renaiisance Wax from appearing in a section about applications. If you know of RS sources that could strengthen the Renaissance article, even if it ultimately is merged, that additional sourcing and/or content would be welcome. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total Wikipedia noob here. The most important point in this is that this wax has no acids or does not turn acidic. This is why it is important in Restoration work. If this is ever merged, the brand name and statement about acid should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.23.17 (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]