Talk:Paper chemicals

Under construction
I've marked this article as under construction because I intend to work on this article as my time permits. I intend to go through each section one by one, improving it, adding only well-sourced high quality references, and maintaining good article quality standards. I hope to nominate this article as a good article by the time I am done. Any assistance is appreciated. David Condrey  log talk  09:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi David, thanks for taking on this topic. Here are a couple of references I came across and thought they might be useful to you or anyone who works on this article in the future:
 * EPA to Regulate Dioxin in Paper Industry
 * The Pulp and Paper Industry, the Pulping Process, and Pollutant Releases to the Environment
 * I'll continue to help where I can. Good luck! Ry's the Guy  (talk&#124;contribs) 13:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Article structure
{| class="tmbox mbox-small"
 * class="mbox-text" |

Waste
After discovering | this product sheet from Akzon Nobel] and | this document from the EPA which is, in my opinion, an exceptional quality reference, the type of which I strive to find; after reviewing these two documents I started thinking about the structure of this article and concluded that it could be beneficial to restructure the sections a bit. The EPA ref is not yet in use but I hope to add it soon, furthered by | this other website which duplicates some content from the EPA document but provides further information as well. (taking this opportunity to bookmark some links here lol)
 * }

This is the new structure I came up with. Opinions?

David Condrey  log talk  06:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good. Do you think it will be difficult to find enough to fill each of those sections? You know a lot more about this than I do so I defer to your judgement. Ry's the Guy  (talk&#124;contribs) 08:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still not confident in how best to structure the articles. The only thing I am certain of is I believe the subject of this article is spread out too much across other similar articles.  I think the first priority should be the merger of some similar articles.  Once that's done and everything is compiled to a rough degree it should hopefully become more clear on what the best structure should be and perhaps take a look at whether or not the subject should rightfully be split up into more specific articles but I do not believe that will be the case. I have lately gotten distracted by another article on Microprinting lately but do intend to get back to this subject soon.  David Condrey   log talk  05:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggest merger of Surface chemistry of paper
Surface chemistry of paper seems to consist of much of the same content of this article. I think that article should be merged into this one and this article should be considered being renamed to Pulp and Paper Refining (refining is a chemical process and the new title would be suitable to covering the chemicals used and the process of developing paper from pulp. As a supplemental article to the Pulp (paper).  The subject of paper/pulp and various manufacturing processes seems to be too far spread out across numerous articles which duplicate much of the same content.  David Condrey   log talk  07:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not my area of expertise, but the 2 articles do seem like they have very similar content. I support the merge and I think that the proposed name makes sense. Ry's the Guy  (talk&#124;contribs) 08:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging the article creators and a significant contributor: looking forward to your input!  Ry's the Guy  (talk&#124;contribs) 08:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: since the proposal was made, the surface chemistry article has been significantly improved through some judicious copy editing, and now reads well. It also covers a distinctly notable topic, because the surface chemistry is important for dye impregnation. The Paper chemicals page covers a different set of topics and challenges; so, I argue that they should remain separate in order to cover their distinct topics. Klbrain (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Chemical formula correction and reverting edits
I edited the formula of sodium hypochlorite from NaOCl to NaOCl and my edit was reverted within seconds. Is there a good reason for this?


 * Hello, you deleted the link to Template:Chemical formula. --Serols (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I couldn’t figure out a way to keep that template and get rid of the subscript. I’m not very experienced at editing Wikipedia - if you or someone who sees this knows how to do this, please do so. The oxygen symbol absolutely should not be subscript.