Talk:Glutaraldehyde

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Algaecidal activity section needs some sources.
I don't like the way this section is written. I would like to delete it all together until someone finds some sources. It's Algaecidal, I got that. Glutaraldehyde kills like almost everything living, that's nothing new. The more important thing to state is in what time frame it disinfects and sterilizes a given substrate or solution. It would be better to state the things it does not kill Like Prions. There are tons of cool things we could add to this page but If "you" may, lets stick to published sources for our information. ;D -William Cozzycovers 13:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozzycovers (talk • contribs)

WP:PHARMMOS
Articles about essential medicines typically follow the ordering of sections at WP:PHARMMOS.

Also the lead should provide a summary per WP:LEAD. A single sentence does not. Therefore restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the nudge. I am getting the article straightened out today and this evening.  It should be better now.  --Smokefoot (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Have adjusted the body to follow MEDMOS and restored a summary as a lead. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

How it is applied
Not sure why this was removed? Or the common brand names.

First sentence did state what it is "disinfectant and medication" So restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

First sentence
Disagree with this "(systematic name 1,5-pentanedial) is an organic compound, a dialdehyde with the chemical formula C5H8O2"

It does not say what it is which is "a disinfectant and medication" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That does not say what it is, just gives a couple of examples of possible uses. And trade names and other commercial information should have no place in the lead, if anywhere at all in Wikipedia. Plant surfer  19:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PHARMMOS we generally include the initial brand in the lead sentence.
 * A "disinfectant and medication" describes it way better for a general audience then the chemical structure. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Also trying to figure out why the citations for the first sentence in edit mode refer to references [1][2][3] but in view mode show (and direct to) [3][4][5]. Rosefirerising (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * what "above" is it that you are agreeing with ?? Plant surfer  10:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Use in aquariums, and sale as a CO2 alternative for planted tanks.
Im at my wits end.

This is the MOST common use that a regular joe will run into glutaraldehyde. Wikipedia is the place people turn to when they lookup long names on labels.

The fact that this is in common use in every aquarium store and petco across the country should be noted on this article.

However i cant seem to find any source that certain people will accept. Photographs of the ingredient label? rejected. The official website of the manufacture? rejected. A sourced non scholarly article on its use in this field? rejected.

so, who can help me find a source that will stand up to any potentially pedantic future review? TheAuthoritativeSource (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This document from the CDC may provide what you are looking for.~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, these search results may be useful for what you are looking for. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Wanna cite your specialized paper? SciFinder report
Substance Identifier "111-30-8 ">substances (1)>get references (49224)>refine "2002-" (36764)>refine "Review" (265)>
 * translation of SciFinder: nearly 50,000 reports and publications on glutaraldehyde, about a 3 reports per day for the previous decade, of which 265 are WP:SECONDARY (reviews).--Smokefoot (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I will give the answer to your insulting and sarcastic title on the subject in another title and in a way that befits wikipedia philosophy. Please prevent yourself from being reactionary and making fun of others. 38.54.105.33 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, three reports per day on this topic.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Improvement on the topic
Before delete content please give sound reason on talk section. If there is hundred of publication about our burden to mention as much as we can not to delete content with some reactionary actions. Changes should be made in order to inform the public about a dangerous and useful chemical, which has a very common usage area and causes some environmental problems at the same time. Please keep this responsibility in mind when making changes. Some sources may be special sources, and their usage areas can be explained by showing more comprehensive sources on the subject. The way to do this is not to reduce sentences from this title, but to organize the sources. @Smokefoot In particular, this person undoes the changes made in the editing of the page with a sarcastic and humiliating attitude and deletes the content from the page.

As can be seen, the usage areas of the related chemical are quite wide and only a few of them have been mentioned on this page yet. 38.54.105.33 (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I apologize if my comments are humiliating or sarcastic. But editing is subject to many rules, one of which is WP:UNDUE, a balanced presentation, and another guideline is WP:SECONDARY (or WP:TERTIARY), for well documented topics, rely on reviews or books.  If a usage of glutaraldehyde is not documented in a review or a book, that use is probably not so important to readers and in fact might mislead readers.  You can see for well studied or publicized topics, my edits include many reviews.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea "if a usage of glutaraldehyde is not documented in a review or a book, that use is probably not so important to readers and in fact might mislead readers" is your idea not the summon of the guideline. If there is book or review related to same facts it will be applied on references by someone on future. Otherwise all references to research papers could be removed from the wiki with the same rhetoric that "X is not documented in a review or a book, that use is probably not so important to readers and in fact might mislead readers". Guideline address usage of reviews and books preferably in case they are available.On the other hand, it is hard to say academically peer-reviewed sources easily mislead the readers. Let's keep it updated together if there is book-review is available to support same idea. 38.54.105.33 (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)