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|contribs)} 13:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Article structure

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|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|contribs)} 08:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging the article creators and a significant contributor: @Dchris02, Appeltree1, and Cmeck: looking forward to your input! Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|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 Na_OCl 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.