Talk:Loctite

Rewrite on 19 February 2007
I removed the notability notice because Loctite is the only brand of threading adhesive I am aware of, so it does deserve an article since it's an important tool in some situations. If it were one of several "threadlocking adhesives" then that article should be written and this one deleted, but I don't believe that's the case. Also, I removed what was basically advertising from the article; it sounded like it was even plagiarized from the company's website. CGameProgrammer 07:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are certainly other threadlockers. For instance, Devcon makes a SuperLock series. Nonetheless, LocTite is probably the best-known threadlocker, and probably does deserve an article of its own. jhawkinson 20:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only probably the best-known threadlocker, in my experience it is close to becoming a genericized trademark. BMJ-pdx (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Tech Support
I had a question on these products, so I called Loctite on their toll free line 1 800 LOC TITE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonahadia (talk • contribs).

Loctite Threadlocker Page?
I think there should be a separate page for Loctite's threadlockers. The info from this article about "theadlocker grades" should be moved there, instead of taking up space on the main Loctite page. It doesn't make sense to devote space here to the different grades of Loctite's threadlockers, unless we are also going to include information about all the other Loctite products.

And I think the link to the MSDS for Loctite 242 should be removed. There are literally hundreds of MSDS pages on Loctite's website, so we shouldn't try to link to each one individually. Deepfryer99 16:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and add more information about other loctite products here. It's not like the page is very full. As a practical matter, threadlocker grades are a common question about loctite products and it makes sense to have them here. If the page were a lot longer, moving them out might make sense, but it's not... jhawkinson 18:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Pun?
Is it possible that Loctite is something like a pun on "lock tight"? (Because it locks stuff tightly) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.16.53 (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a "pun." It is certainly a trademark based on the idea that it locks things tightly, yes. This is probably not worth mentioning in the article. jhawkinson (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

redirect PLASTIC PADDING
Why does PLASTIC PADDING redirect to Loctite? I'm searching for a producer with this name. (If it is one first ;)) On this site it is listed as a brand together with Loctite and others. (only on danish side) So a redirect makes no sense. - @work Anonym 14 Jan 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.64.188.53 (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the redirect; it now redirects to Henkel because it is a Henkel brand name. Wizard191 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Advertising tag
The following conversation was started on my talk page: Wizard191 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The following sounds promotional: Wizard191 (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Krieble’s company, American Sealants, founded the Loctite brand, which was promoted as ushering in a new era of mechanical reliability by eliminating the vibrational loosening of mechanical fasteners, a frequent cause of machine failure."
 * "flagship"
 * "Since 1997, Loctite has remained a primary Henkel brand and a supplier of household adhesives, epoxies, spray adhesives, construction adhesives and home repair, sealants and fillers. In recent years, the company has increased its focus on green and sustainable technologies."


 * Nonsense - with all due respect, of course. These are objective statements of fact. In the first case, it clearly states that the brand was 'promoted as ushering in a new era of mechanical reliability' - not that it, in fact, did so. To state that the product eliminated the vibrational loosening of mechanical fasteners would be a far more blatant subjective statement. What we were trying to achieve is to let readers know the purpose of the product originally created under the Loctite name. You are splitting hairs.


 * Second - 'flagship' is a commonly used term to denote the largest part of a whole. It is meant to convey the concept of size and not quality.


 * Finally- this is a list of the products now supplied under the Loctite name- I would be happy to bullet point the list if that would make it less objectionable - but again, it is a simple statement of fact about what types of products are produced by the Loctite brand, information that would be essential to any company entry, and information that now exists on countless other Wikipedia company entries without being flagged. The increase in green technologies is likewise a statement of fact, and one that reflects the evolution of the brand in the current marketplace.


 * I've worked in journalism for more than 20 years, so I know the difference between objective and subjective copy. I think we're being unfairly singled out here. I have tried my best to work within your standards and make changes as requested, but if we're not going to be given the same consideration as other companies, we'll just let the piece stand as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.179.135 (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. - here's a line that currently appears in the Wikipedia entry for Panasonic: "The company debuted a hi-fidelity audio speaker in Japan in 1965 with the brand Technics. This line of high quality stereo components became worldwide favorites. The most famous product still made today is the SL-1200 record player, known for its high performance, precision, and durability."


 * So let's be consistent with our standards, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.179.135 (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I move the conversation here, because others should comment on this. If others think that's it's not advert-y then I'm fine with removing the template, however I currently stand by my initial comments. Wizard191 (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the wording of this article is overly avert-y--I agree with the comments the other user made regarding the specific points which could be contested. Quite a few references are cited (though there should be in-line citations) and it seems unlikely that any of the material in the article was intentionally written to sound like an advertisment, nor do I believe it sounds like one. Just my two cents. Lrkleine (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Anaerobic
I don't think anaerobic is an ingredient. It is an adjective/modifier that means "without oxygen." I did a quick search and no product came up. Ileanadu (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Anaerobic" could stand some explanation.
"Anaerobic" should have a Wikipedia article (not just a Wiktionary entry). I find it rather mysterious how the lack of something (in this case, oxygen) can cause a chemical reaction. Or in other words, how the presence of oxygen prevents a chemical reaction, without itself being consumed in some way. (According to the Catalysis article, catalysts only increase the rate of a chemical reaction, although I seem to recall, perhaps mistakenly, that they can also (mysteriously) decrease the rate.) BMJ-pdx (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)