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).

Can 'polythene' be just any kind of polymer?
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: 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)
 * 1) Either it talks about polymers with the basic chemical identity of actual polyethylene
 * 2) Or it takes 'polythene' as a sort of placeholder of any kind of polymer, that might look and feel to a layperson like polyethylene

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


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

Attention needed
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. V ani s che nu mTalk 09:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

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