This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Polymers (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polymers, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PolymersWikipedia:WikiProject PolymersTemplate:WikiProject PolymersPolymers

Archives

Archive 1

I think the section on polymer architecture could be expanded and even have it's own page. On the page for RAFT polymerization, there is a section on applications that includes a discussion of architecture and has a figure. In my opinion, this figure and some of the discussion is inappropriate for a page on RAFT and I am thinking of moving the figure to a new page titles Polymer Architecture. Any objections / thoughts? AussieScientist (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section is very long and would merit its own page. You seem to be a new user; if you have any problems orchestrating this then let me know and I will help. Unfortunately I know very little about this subject and cannot give much input on what ought to be in an article called "polymer architecture", but if you have ideas then I would love to help you make it happen. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why no section on polymer gels?129.2.129.220 (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Gel to the See also list at the end, and Sol-gel was already there. Dirac66 (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article could scare away an entire generation of potential polymer specialists. Imagine all those little kids wondering what the wonderful world of polymers is all about, then they try to read the intro to this and have seizures!

Seriously, this "article" could be worse than nothing. It is of no use to anyone trying to learn, it's techno-babble by a narrow expert who doesn't get out much. By the time I looked up everything I'd need to know to re-write this, I'd be an expert too. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who would you like to fix this? Can you recommend someone? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the pronunciation to /ˈpɒl.ɪ.mər/. On Wikipedia, /ɨ/ is the symbol we use to indicate the weak vowel that can be pronounced either /ə/ (especially in American English) or /ɪ/. Both pages that were given as sources for the pronunciation in fact give both these possibilities. For syllabification, I attached the /l/ to the stressed syllable following the practice of most pronunciation dictionaries. Iceager (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote 'the chemical industry, 2nd ed' chapter 4:

"a substance -R-R- ... Where R is a bifunctional entity (or bivalent radical) which is not capable of a separate existence" ... "This excludes ... Materials like diamond, silica and metals which appear to have the properties of polymers, but are capable of being vaporised into monomer units".

Now admittedly i have no clue what a bifunctional entity is meant to mean exactly, but the simple 'composed of monomers' definition provided at the start pf this article seems grossly insufficient.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist:

Just wondering, I saw some deliberate "vandalisms" in recent edits; are they testings for the BOTs? :P ---SzMithrandir (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs more description of the bulk properties, the mathematical relationships, and the physical explanations for the relationships.

Many sources needed in this article. Especially in the polymer degradation section there is a dearth of citations. The link to the UV degradation stub reveal that it cite no sources as well. PleaseSirMore (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that more of a discussion on the physical properties is needed. There are topics like, toughness, wear resistance, and oxidation resistance that are relevant to polymers used in load bearing applications. Additionally, lamellae were not mentioned once in the morphology section which seems weird as that is what the ordered regions are called. It seems like an oversight not to include it. Chain reptation may also be a good section to add as many material properties are based on chain movement, especially in long chain polymers. AlphaBravo12 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a mention of chain reptation, including a link to the specialized article reptation for more detailed information.Dirac66 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section on transport properties is pretty vague right now and contains no citations. Maybe it could be expanded slightly, and could include links to pages for the various transport properties (if those pages exist)? Engs123 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The organization of the beginning of this article could be improved. The flow of ideas in the intro seems a bit disjointed near the end, transitioning quickly from fields that include polymer science to types of polymers to theoretical models. Additionally, the intro includes too many technical details about biological macromolecules. Later on, “Laboratory Synthesis” should have its own sub-heading under the “Polymer Synthesis” heading, just as “Biological Synthesis” does. The “Polymer Properties” section is overall well-organized, although it includes much more detail than any of the other sections. Within it, as has already been noted, the “Transport Properties” sub-heading could use more information.--Riley18 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polymer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513040249/http://www.slideshare.net/intratec/membranes-on-polyolefins-plants-vent-recovery to http://www.slideshare.net/intratec/membranes-on-polyolefins-plants-vent-recovery

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the days before the internet, an article found in an encyclopedia was written in such a way that it was accessable to one and all; the lay-person on up, from a student who needed to do some research, to the inveterate, omnivorous reader, who just liked to learn.

The operational thing here, is that by their very nature, they're designed to be accessable to all. For people who want to learn more, or perhaps, need an advanced level, that's when a person would look at a book, etc., geared to such.

Another thing encyclopedias are known for (good and/or bad) is that many students - rather than actually doing the required reading and research for a Kaperst, would copy - whole-cloth - articles or off their encyclopedia.

Now, is the 'marriage' of both, for good and for bad, which had come with the digital age.

I read a lot, and I know I'm not alone in noticing the following; there's articles, here in Wikipedia (which for all intents and purposes is as close to a digital equivalent of Britannica or World Book for the 21st century, with other wikis serving as more concentrated, and with it, more detailed places to finds information) which fall into 2 basic categories;

- Generally basic information, readily available - 'High-end' articles, which are articles out of a very small, basic, general class (unfortunately, and it's steadily growing)

It's these, high-end articles I'm referring to here, and this 'polymers' is a (literal, and I DO MEAN LITERAL) text book example.

All these articles are not just obvious in their almost opaqueness to the average reader, they're also (poorly) hiding that - of all that I've looked at - every single one - is copied - whole-cloth - from university-level text books, which is bad enough, as no credits are given, but it's sickening that those who 'write' the purported 'self-authored' articles think it's 'ok', and to make matters even worse; the so-called 'moderators' do very little (I'm being very, VERY generous) fact-checking on ANY of this, nor is the fact that these 'articles' are almost always only comprehensible by others who have taken courses in the specific area.

No one quibbles when there's an article - as an example - on a basic, run-of-the-mill subject, but; had the article included copious use of such un-standard (in current, every day speech), such as; 'thus', 'however', and many others (when was the last time you used 'thus' either in everyday speech or come across it in anything but the aforementioned type of articles I'm talking about?)

How often is 'thus' found in the article about swimming pools? Chocolate chip cookies? Now, look at almost any article which (sadly) the 'average' uni-level student attended, and you'll be smacked by it in abundance.

Looking at the language used, and the way it's used, and comparing it with other articles, one will quickly see a pattern.

Let me be clear about something (which is really irrelevant); I've had a very good education, so it's not that I'm unfamiliar with any of these, what I'm saying is, there's a very ominous pattern.

The last time I came across many of these words was when I was in uni.

It's sad that Wikipedia had allowed this to go on - and continue - unabated as long as it has, and that no one's raised a stink which brought any kind of response other than the pablum I got (when I brought it up once, several years ago, this obviously 'high-end' writing, in what's supposed to be a general purpose wiki; I got the puff-ball of all time. I didn't even bother to bring up how painfully obvious it was that the (at-issue) article was not written by the supposed author, but copied from a textbook!

I'm not a crank, nor am I crazy (slightly bonkers, perhaps), but I DO know what sh-te smells like, and it's all over Wikipedia.

No one gets called out on it, no one is directed to remove it.

Heck, I haven't even brought up the other ridiculous missuses of Wikipedia; the pages of (eithe)r young (and or) aspiring talent, written by either publicists or handlers, or by people not worthy of being in a general purpose wiki, and the ones who just use it as a place to post a/their CV (resume).

Anything which is changeable by anyone will - by it's very nature lead to problems. If one's in a fight, one expects their opponent to abide by the rules, but the number who don't/won't in substantial, and they'll hit below the belt, and in the case of Wikipedia, this means they plagerise from textbooks, user it as a place to advertise themselves, and it's getting much worse than it was,

It's frightening, and sickening to me - and I hope many others 'The past is prologue…' — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNOwenNYC (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Guido Raos from Politecnico di Milano, member of the SPT (Subcommitee on Polymer Terminology) of IUPAC's Polymer Division. Within the next 3-4 months, we would like to upgrade this article to the level of "feature article" on Wikipedia's chemistry portal. Anyone who would like to contribute may leave a comment below, if possible by stating if there are parts of the article that they are going to concentrate on. --Gmrozz (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great, Guido - I'd like to help! Let's start a list of participants. Walkerma (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• --Walkerma (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• --SPT Paul Topham (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• --Cauloid (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• --Ckl21 (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• --SPT ChrisFellows (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• --Lsosavargas (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• --Rogerchiorns (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• --Joziga (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• --Gmrozz (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• --Polymerix (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walkerma has kindly contacted us at Wikipedia's (informal) chemistry editing community (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry). It's good to hear that IUPAC's chemists are interested in helping out, this is an important article that could definitely use some improvement. You obviously sound like experts but may I ask if you have any history writing Wikipedia entries? If not, then my main advice would be to remember that most of our readership are not chemists and efforts must be made to make things easily understandable, particularly with 'entry-level' pages such as this. We had a situation recently where several members of the International Steering Committee of the Symposia on the Jahn-Teller effect decided to overhaul Jahn–Teller effect. The result, while doubtless highly accurate, is of such a level of complexity that its incomprehensible even to some chemists. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is an excellent point. In our discussion, we did mention that it's better to use sources like review articles and books rather than primary research articles. Thanks for reminding us to remember our main audience here - it can be easy to forget that! Walkerma (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is not a GA (Good Article) yet, the level before/below FA status. Wikipedia:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article is an overview of that GA -> FA step (see also this essay). Of course one could aim for FA directly, but that it requires at least some experience in Wikipedia editing. Which is not the same as scientific writing, as Project Osprey pointed out above (re this: number of edits by the participants generally is not very high—though the professional level is impressive :-) ). This is not to discourage, but to help looking in the right direction. I've added a tool list to the right here, just to start exploring issues.

If you think the article needs a structural rewriting, one could discuss a new TOC & structure on this talkpage (like this discussion).

An other route could be: make a preliminary todo-list first; todo before formally going into GAC/FAC candidacy status. (For example, the hassium article is doing that now, see here).

Sure the professional and personal rewards of such an effort may be worth it (daily avg: 1750 pageviews). All the best, -DePiep (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have collected several observations on the article from members of IUPAC's Polymer Division, some of whom are lister above. I list them below as bullet points, so that they can be used as suggestions or discussion points for improving the article (I/we might actually edit the article ourselves, in the next months):Gmrozz (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The very first sentence in the article disagrees with IUPAC's definition, given in the box. It disagrees also with the definitions contained in the dictionaries, which are cited as references. A polymer is not a macromolecule (an individual polymer chain), but a chemical substance or a material made up of macromolecules.
• The introduction could be shortnened a bit. Reference to "ideal chains" at the end of this section should be deleted (too specific, not understandable in this context).
• Add a brief section on the history of polymer science, perhaps with a reference to this article (which could be expanded further).
• Add new sections or sub-sections of increasing today interest. Synthetic and naturally occuring polymers are mentioned as belonging to the same ensemble in the introduction,but this is somewhat lost later on, although biomacromolecules are sometime mentioned. There is a lot to learn from biological macromolecular systems in the search for smart synthetic polymers, see for example here.
• The section on degradation would benefit from a whole subsection on biodegradable polymer. If possible more focus on polymers used in a biomedical setting.
• Add a Section on "uses of polymers"? "Polymer semiconductors" or "conductive polymers" are not mentioned at all. Add link to Conductive polymer and Organic electronics.
• The polymer synthesis section needs to be updated if we want to use current IUPAC terminology. We could leave the existing term "chain-growth polymerization" and insert a new term "chain polymerization", which is short for chain reaction polymerization. The term that should be used in place of "step-growth polymerization" is currently being debated by an incipient IUPAC task group. Currently there is a stub for polyaddition but polycondensation does not exist. Add an example of polyethylene synthesis illustrate chain polymerization?
• The polymer properties section is too long. It needs some restructuring. It could be broken up into two sections, respectively one dealing with "Structure" (molecular-level, as we all morphology, etc.) and one dealing with "Properties" (mechanical, optical, electrical, phase behavior, etc.).
• The Macromolecule article could/should also be significantly improved. Not only is it a smaller page, but most of it is on biological macromolecules, with just a very small section on "synthetic macromolecules". See also the first bullet point.
• Mention distinction between hydrophobic and hydrophilic polymers, with related applications.
• "The terms polymer and resin are often synonymous with plastic". This should be corrected, or perhaps deleted altogether. We have come across people who think that DNA is a plastic.
• In the nomenclature section we should probably comment and explain why the ACS and IUPAC naming is different.
• The section on Polymer#Modification of natural polymers has a paragraph on gas separation, which is not relevant and should be (re)moved.

We have a draft version here:User:Gmrozz/Polymer_sandbox. Comments are welcome.Gmrozz (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time went by. The page was made semi-protected in June 2019. Vandals would be pretty well organized to remember coming again. I researched a bit and had the impression that at that time vandalism had a tradition of several months (about 3), not years. Utonsal (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is polymer 192.140.254.1 (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another prominent example are thiolated polymers (=thiomers) such as thiolated polysaccharides. ^[1][2] Thiomers are able to crosslink and to interact with biological surfaces via disulfide bond formations. ^[3]

I would like to add this type of modification to the section entitled 'Modification of natural polymers' after the sencence ending .....sulfur. PharmScout8 (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: There area couple of things here. First, do you have a conflict of interest with respect to the sources you've provided here and the subject matter of this article? I see another editor has left a notice on your talk page about this. If you do, then, in addition to the other things stated in that notice, your requests for edits should be submitted using the conflict of interest edit request template. Second, it is unclear what exactly you wish to add, after the sentence that ends with "sulfur". If you submit another edit request related to this, please be more specific as to what it is exactly that you wish to add. It might be useful to also provide more description of the location where you'd like to add content as well, just in case any edits are made to the location that would make it hard to identify. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in the first paragraph:"and a tendency to form amorphous and semicrystalline structures" the word amorphous should link to amorphous solid not to glass Kildwyke (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]