Talk:Saran (plastic)

Merge with Polyvinylidene chloride

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: declined. Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: This article is more about the brand than the plastic. Rename? Zab (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments are you proposing a rename? If so, of which article, and to what new name? Also, I don't agree that the content of the current Saran (plastic) article is "more about the brand than the plastic"; there are only a few sentences about the brand. jnestorius(talk) 04:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Support: currently there are three articles: Plastic wrap, polyvinylidene chloride, and Saran (plastic). Saran should not exist as a separate article. The generic commercial part belongs in plastic wrap, the specific chemistry part in polyvinylidene chloride. jnestorius(talk) 04:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Support different kind of merge: Saran (plastic) and Plastic wrap. Saran wrap used to be polyvinylidene chloride, according to my checking (http://www.saranbrands.com/), but it is not that anymore. So the polyvinylidene chloride article would describe how it once was the basis of Saran wrap. And the plastic wrap would describe how Saran wrap has changed over the years. Readers must be confused by our current offerings, but there is much interest in the material with which we wrap our food.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: The two compositions are distinct. Polyvinylidene chloride is a homopolymer. Saran is a copolymer of vinylidene chloride and other monomers, usually vinyl chloride. If the pages were merged, the topic would have to be something like "Vinylidene Chloride Polymers", which is less clean. Silhign (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: There is important material about the brand, product, and its place in society which would not belong in the article on Polyvinylidene chloride. However, I agree with Smokefoot that this article should instead be merged into plastic wrap. "Saran wrap" should redirect to that page, just as "Clingfilm" does. Mooncow (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: This is ridiculous. OMFG. 18.189.58.168 (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: This is, as mentioned, ridiculous. Saran&trade; is a trade name for a variety of PVDC-containing copolymers, not for PVDC itself. It most certainly should not be merged with Plastic wrap; it it no longer used for that purpose and is used for many others. Next you'll be trying to merge Plumbing with Lead. 72.1.134.32 (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Still Oppose: Despite the unhelpfully intemperate phrasing of the previous comment, it has a point. This article is about Saran (plastic), a trade name for a variety of PVDC-containing polymers, and the material that was originally used to make Saran Wrap. Saran Wrap is already mentioned in the plastic wrap page, and this page links to that page where appropriate. The page on polyvinylidene chloride is quite separate. No merging is necessary in any direction. Mooncow (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The link for reference 1 appears to be a click-through site. I could not find the correct link. Can someone repair or remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.195.83.157 (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

old Saran
This article says that old Saran wrap was PVDC, not mixed polymers. If it really is a copolymer, then the article should be changed. Otherwise, it sounds like the trade name Saran is now separate from the name Saran Wrap. Gah4 (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Trademark status
The section makes an assumption using a reference that simply has the "TM" superscript symbol without explaining the legal precedent for what is implied exclusive use of the mark. "TM" doesn't indicate ownership of the mark to begin with (in the US, it indicates a "signal" to other companies foundational without legal barring by itself), and without a reference that shows that mark ownership was given to this company to begin with (completely lacking), the entire section seems like it should be scrubbed. Looking at it, and it's one reference, it simply seems like a company is producing a similar product, and--not wanting to run afoul of anyone, but not understanding how trademarks work, simply slapped a "TM" on the trade name. What's worse is that it appears the entire section implies that the trade name has been legally transferred "elsewhere" as a result. 2601:204:C001:27E0:E73D:CD0:2315:4AB0 (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * More evidence to this point is that the japanese page at https://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/sarannet/whatsaran.html uses (R) and even less consistently, which--without actual evidence of the claims made--indicates the company doesn't even understand the difference. I'm scrubbing the whole section at this point. Please--of course--restore and clean up if there's a more appropriate citation for the claims. 2601:204:C001:27E0:E73D:CD0:2315:4AB0 (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As well as I know it, trademarks are by country, and so different things can use a trademark in different countries. Also, companies can sell trademarks, and the buyer can use it for a different product. Personally, I think I miss real pyrex more than Saran. Gah4 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made a change similar to the anonymous editor, but with (I believe) slightly better, if american-centered, justification. The mark is definitively dead here in the US: while I didn't research other jurisdictions, I doubt that the mark of a US company would be allowed to expire in the US but not in others.  Please review and edit if you find that to be appropriate. Calumapplepie (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As well as I know it, trademarks are by country, and so different things can use a trademark in different countries. Also, companies can sell trademarks, and the buyer can use it for a different product. Personally, I think I miss real pyrex more than Saran. Gah4 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made a change similar to the anonymous editor, but with (I believe) slightly better, if american-centered, justification. The mark is definitively dead here in the US: while I didn't research other jurisdictions, I doubt that the mark of a US company would be allowed to expire in the US but not in others.  Please review and edit if you find that to be appropriate. Calumapplepie (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment removed from "formulation change to polyethylene"
Yes, fun with trademarks. It seems a trademark owner can use the name any way they want, including naming something else with it. Note also that pyrex is not PYREX (borosilicate glass) anymore. (Upper case seems to be the right one.) Gah4 (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Tranquilled (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought it was the talk page, but I had both open at the same time. Gah4 (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought it was the talk page, but I had both open at the same time. Gah4 (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought it was the talk page, but I had both open at the same time. Gah4 (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)