Talk:Biodegradable polythene film

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Polymers (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polymers, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PolymersWikipedia:WikiProject PolymersTemplate:WikiProject PolymersPolymers articles

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).

Can 'polythene' be just any kind of polymer?[edit]

The article now introduces 'polythene' and 'polyethylene' as synonyms. Polyethylene is a specific polymer type with a certain polymer network that distinguishes it from other polymers, and the article also confirms this understanding. The article then goes on to list various examples of 'biodegradable polythene film' which clearly belong to other polymer types (Polycaprolactone PCL, Polyvinyl alcohol PVA, Polylactic acid PLA). All these are not polyethylene polymers, i.e. polymers from ethylene. So to me there is an ambiguity in the use of the term 'polyethylene' in this article:

Either it talks about polymers with the basic chemical identity of actual polyethylene
Or it takes 'polythene' as a sort of placeholder of any kind of polymer, that might look and feel to a layperson like polyethylene

In the first case PCL, PVA, PLA cannot be given as examples of 'biodegradable polythene film', because they are not really (chemically) polyethylene. In the second case the article should clearly state that it uses 'polythene' as a hold-all for various kinds of polymers, and if so should remove the longish exhortation of what polyethylene is and avoid using polyethylene as a synonym for polythene. I am not a native speaker and don't know if the second choice makes more sense to the reader. Me personally I'd prefer the first option.--212.25.6.89 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

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)[reply]

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

4 Polyethylene paragraphs & other problems[edit]

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)[reply]

Article contradictions[edit]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskilian (talk • contribs) 08:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the second edit. It was a spelling correction on the first edit. Oskilian (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed[edit]

This article desperately needs some attention from an expert. I think the two sub-sections of this article has gone too far from the article's scope. Vanischenu m^Talk 09:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biodegradable polythene film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119200038/http://www.biodeg.org/position-papers/recycling/?domain=biodeg.org to http://www.biodeg.org/position-papers/recycling/?domain=biodeg.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]