Talk:Cyanoacrylate

Chemistry Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[screw#bolt|bolt]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Nail glue?

Isn't this the same stuff used for acrylic nails? Also, are there different strengths? The brands I've used couldn't bond skin permanently even if someone really tried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.32.254 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to get out of a fix

If you have a problem with superglue,AKA Cyanoacrylate:

Someone has inserted superglue in the door locks of my car, I was wondering if there is any dissolvent in which I can soak my locks instead of paying some ridiculas amount to install new locks any help would be welcolmed From Jan N.Z

I did a little googling, and found the following advice over on http://www.howstuffworks.com/question695.htm : "By the way, if you happen to find yourself in a super-sticky situation, a little bit of acetone nail-polish remover helps to unglue fingers." So perhaps squirting a little nail-polish remover into the lock will help. Note, I have never tried this myself, so I make no guarantees. Bryan 06:14 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

For the record, I got my fingers covered in this today and tried alcohol (mostly pure) which didn't work, and chloroform, which worked a bit (still had to peel some of the glue off) but stinks like crazy and makes you slightly high 90.216.22.4 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with super glue is that polycyanoacrylate cross links when it cures, so it doesn't actually dissolve in anything (although it will swell and soften in certain solvents). Acetone doesn't really have sufficient chemical similarity to have a great softening effect on it, and ethanol (alcohol) even less so. Chloroform is unlikely to have much effect either, (by the way, it won't make you high unless you are in a very enclosed space and sniff it like crazy, which I wouldn't advise - its carcinogenic for one thing). The best material to try would probably be methylene chloride, but it isn't really readily available and its also quite a toxic product. If you have superglue in car locks, it will hang around and gum things up even if you are able to break it up. New locks, I think. StanPomeray (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC) (industrial polymer chemist for around 25 years)[reply]

This paper says that chloroform works better than anything else they tested, including toluene and dichloromethane--see page 6. Piojo (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction with cotton

The current article states "If applied to cotton, cyanoacrylate undergoes an exothermic reaction rapid enough to cause minor burns if spilled on clothing, although this reaction is not powerful enough to be noticeable unless it involves more cyanoacrylate than any non-commercial use would reasonably call for." Isn't this a bit of a contradiction? If it's strong or fast enough to cause minor burns, wouldn't it be noticeable? (Also, a recent accidental encounter with said reaction left no doubt in my mind that it's noticeable, and my painful fingers agree...) Eleraama 05:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely has a talk page produced two LOL moments for me. This and the previous remark about the chloroform had me gasping for air! And the page come up very high on a Google search for "does Cyanocrylate work on foam.TjoeC (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Burning point"?

I think it's supposed to be "flashpoint"? Plus, most sources I've seen says it's either at 85°C or "more than 85"°C.

It seems like the term should be flashpoint, so I can change that. As to what the flashpoint is, the International Programme on Chemical Safety (associated with the World Health Organization) has pages on Ethyl and Methyl 2-Cyanoacrylate putting the flashpoints at 75°C and 79°C, respectively. The pages are here for ethyl and methyl. I would presume that those flashpoints can be considered representative of cyanoacrylate in general. wikinick 16:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about octyl-2-cyanoacrylate, which according to the Straight Dope article in "external links" is the form used surgically? ~~ N (t/c) 21:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't correct for the specific flash or fire points of this substance, but the above commentator seems unclear on the concepts of flash and fire points. From the Wikipedia article on "Flash Point":

"The flash point of a flammable liquid is the lowest temperature at which it can form an ignitable mixture with oxygen. At this temperature the vapor may cease to burn when the source of ignition is removed. A slightly higher temperature, the fire point, is defined at which the vapor continues to burn after being ignited. Neither of these parameters is related to the temperatures of the ignition source or of the burning liquid, which are much higher. The flash point is often used as one descriptive characteristic of liquid fuel, but it is also used to describe liquids that are not used intentionally as fuels."

Is super glue usable on ceramics that are heated? Safe for ceramic kitchen ware?

Health risks

What are the health risks cyanocrylate poses to people? I'm curious because a superglue tube accidentaly felt into a toaster once, and I had a hint of how a chemical attack feels like (not pretty).

if evaporated and breathe in you could probably get a non-cancerous growth. besides that lung damage, just like smoking your lungs fuse themselves to pretty much any hazardous substance. just to be sure goto a doctor. Markthemac 21:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a growth can be created due to particles sticking to it inside your body, causing an infection. Markthemac 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medical?

[ I very much doubt the veracity of "Its major polymerization byproduct, acetic acid, is biocompatible. Cyanoacrylates are used in orthopedic surgery to glue metal appliances to bone. They are often used, for example, to glue artificial hip appliances to femurs and pelvic girdles." Acetic acid is a byproduct of acetoxy RTV silicones, not cyanoacrylates (CAs). As CAs have poor moisture resistance, they are probably not used as structural adhesives inside the human body, unless meant to be temporary.

In reviewing some abstracts via Google, it looks like there are some problems with N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NBCA), a new-generation cyanoacrylate derivative, and there are some details on the use of "cyanoacrylate glue applied on both deep and superficial tissues" that seem to be slightly negative on animal testing. I don't know much about the field, so I'm just trying to throw out some info, but I personally doubt anyone's using such adhesives to hold hip appliances to femurs. Harmil 20:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the use of CYANOACRYLATES in orthopedics. I think you will find that most bone cements are actually derived from methyl methacrylates (i.e. PMMA or perspex) and not cyanoacrylates.

Acetic acid

Someone got very confused. Acetic acid is a byproduct from the cure of some RTV silicones (acetoxy types) - nothing to do with cyanoacrylate adhesives, which do not really have any cure byproducts. --borborygmus 19:02, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Ways to store opened(debuted) Superglue

We often find that superglues caps are not ultra airtight. Bit by bit chemicals will leak out and the glue hardens. What is the solution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.116.21 (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it in a ziploc with one of those silica sachets that come with new shoes.78.151.182.240 (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silica won't be good enough. Use a closet dehumidifier, probably containing calcium chloride. Silica isn't strong enough to protect anything except a small very well sealed container. Piojo (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Copyright Violation

The vast majority of this text is ripped straight from Cecil Adams Straightdope. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msuperglue.html

Looks like it's just the new material added most recently by an anon IP. I'll double-check and revert it this evening when I've got a little more time. Bryan 14:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked as] copyvio and am copying the non-copyvio text to Cyanoacrylate/Temp. ~~ N (t/c) 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, looks like getting back to this slipped my mind. :) Instead of copy-and-pasting the old version to a /temp page, deleting the current page, and then restoring the /temp version, I've just reverted the copyvio addition. This article has a long contribution history that would be lost in such a procedure. Bryan 04:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know about that bit of policy. It's too bad we can't easily delete versions from the history. ~~ N (t/c) 05:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Policy's a little vague on how to deal with this, IIRC, because copyright law is itself a little vague on this matter. Specific versions of an article can be deleted, but in a bit of a kludgy way - what has to be done is to delete the article entirely and then undelete every version except the ones that shouldn't be there. I am paranoid about deleting articles, though, stemming from an incident where I thought I'd somehow permanently wiped an article's history out of existence (I hadn't, but anxiety like that leaves a mark :). I guess if you think it's necessary I'll take a crack at it. Bryan 07:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, policy says leaving it in the history is fine if the copyright holder doesn't complain. ~~ N (t/c) 07:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the Medical Uses part is still a verbatim excerpt/copyright violation from the straight dope column, including the quote by the inventor. see http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2187/was-super-glue-invented-to-seal-battle-wounds-in-vietnam for comparison. --84.129.144.156 (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that section. If anyone wants, they can rewrite it in a non-infringing way and acknowledging the sources. (Or if there is proof that the plagiarism went in the other direction, please discuss it here.) --Itub (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family

I just deleted references to family and a brother-in-law in the article. Does anyone know why they were in there in the first place? The paragraph is still written in first person, if someone else wants to change it. Emfraser 17:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History

History of Loctite Corperation Aparently what we know as superglue today was actually invented by Vernon Krieble. Maybe super glue should be separate from Cyanoacrylate? Curretly it is forwarded to this page.

Only if there are non-cyanoacrylate super-glue-type compounds. If not, they're the exact same thing. We don't have separate pages for Prozac and fluoxetine. ~~ N (t/c) 20:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Superglue" is a brand name for cyanoacrylate adhesives. Vernon Krieble invented aerobic adhesives (i.e. threadlockers), not CAs. --borborygmus 13:12, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Random trivia

Not suitable for inclusion in the article, but anyone who wants to get a chuckle out of it can do it here:

In the TNG episode "The Child", a type of radiation which causes rapid growth is said to be produced by "certain cyanoacrylates". Clearly some writer in need of a cool-sounding chemical came up with superglue! Andrew Rodland

Health Warning! Sniffing Super Glue is Extremely Dangerous and in some cases couses Death.

For amusement value only: a fellow I knew I college was fond of saying that cyanoacrylates will bond any two substances instantly and permanently provided at least one of them is human skin. Septegram 17:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical? Where does it go?

If cyanoacrylate is used to stop bleeding, certainly some of it will remain under the skin once the wound heals? Does it stay where it was put indefinately or does it get taken up by the body and disposed of somehow? —Ben FrantzDale 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once had a small puncture wound treated with cyanoacrylate, and after a few days it peeled off all in one piece like a scab. —Keenan Pepper 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonding

Does superglue form a chemical bond with the surfaces on which it adheres, or is it just a mechanical bond? (Or does it depend on the material?) It obviously doesn't stick well to nylon since that's what the bottles are always made of. —Ben FrantzDale 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC) they make medical kinds of it and it was deleloped djuring the vienam war to stop bleeding but is not recomended for cuts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.154.107 (talk) 23:55:41, August 18, 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the ones in retail aren't body safe, they aren't purely one substance, and produced in a places like china in non-laboratory environment "need i say more?" Markthemac 21:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of today's product vs. 20, 30 years ago

Having tried several brands of superglue lately with less than happy results, I have the strong feeling that the product is far weaker than the superglue sold in the 1970s. Back then there were a lot of stories regarding users bonding all their fingers together against the surface to be glued, and having this bond instantly. Is it possible (as I suspect) that the product today has been weakened to avoid this kind of mishap? Is this something that can be documented? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect as much. Despite all the warnings, whenever I end up superglued to myself, I never have any difficuly pulling the bond apart. It only ever hurts if I get it on something hairy like my arm. Pulling apart two fingertips has never been a problem. Maybe the warnings are for older people with weaker skin. boffy_b 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that only two people have expressed this opinion is evidence that the experience was probably just bad luck. It may also be better manufacturing: better inhibitors might slow down the bond instead of sticking instantly as it used to. (You can buy different formulations that have different cure speeds.) Piojo (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article lacks citations

Hi all. This article fails to cite its sources per WP:REF. I therefore added the tag for this on the article page. Not citing sources is substandard for Wikipedia articles. Peace, CyberAnth 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC) once i ended up with 2 fingers stuck beacuse they were both sprained at the time and it hurt to much to pull it apart my pinky and my ring finger i had to soak it in water —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.154.107 (talk) 23:58:27, August 18, 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article misses most important point

How do they get it into the tube without gluing everything together?

There is no catalyst in the tube, so it stays liquid. —Ben FrantzDale 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity - contradiction?

The Toxicity section has this sentence "Due to these toxicity issues, 2-octyl-cyanoacrylate is used for sutures." which sounds contradictory. Does it mean that the issues are not significant enough or is there a crucial "not" missing? Que (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to refer to toxicity of ethyl CA, so I changed it to that effect. Please correct me if I'm off-base. Where next Columbus? (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerator

What exactly is in cyano accelerator (aka "kicker")? The bottle just says "aliphatic hydrocarbons". How does it work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanos are stabilized by acids. Accelerators are usually chemicals that make the bonding surface more basic. Water is a weak base, which is why your fingers bond together. But to really get the reaction to go faster, make the surface more basic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression, backed up with a little empirical experience that methylated spirits was an effective accelerator (it made the glue react much faster). Next time someone gets the glue on their fingers try dipping them in a little meths and see if that makes the glue set instantly so they don't bond adjacent digits - and report back here! SlySven (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at SDS for various commercial accelerators, and the Wikipedia article on toluidine, it appears that N,N Dimethyl-P-Toluidine is a commonly used accelerator. A few percent of this compound is mixed with either acetone or light petroleum distillates (i.e. naphtha) depending on the kind of surface to use it on. These solvents are inert, but one or both may adversely affect the surfaces to be bonded. Morycm (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonia vapor is an effective kicker. And the "aliphatic hydrocarbons" in a bottle of commercial accelerant are just the carrier, not the active ingredient. The active ingredient in the product I looked at was a compound with an amino group, which cyanoacrylate reacts with. Piojo (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debonding

What is in the de-bonder? It seems to be mostly acetone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert the acrylat bonds in superglue and unset first or, is it easier

to cyanides bond to get revert firstly? What are the compounds at hand?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.163.193 (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foam-safe/odourless

How is foam-safe cyano made? Why is the regular type non-foam friendly? Is either type weaker? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bond Angles

Can someone change the bond angle of the cyanide in the polymerization diagram. The C-C-N angle is 180°. I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.19.23 (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to Cotton; Spontaneous Combustion

Is a video on Metacafe that could have easily been faked really a reliable enough reference to cite? I really don't think so. Brogandman (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction to fire is a recurring topic in a number of sources, and is referenced in a number of readily accessible Material Data Safety Sheets for cyanoacrylate glues.Thozza (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the claim about combustion. You can add it back if you find *trustworthy* evidence. Or try it yourself if you have the glue and a cotton ball. Piojo (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stringed-instrument players

It is not common to stringed-instrument players to "form protective finger caps" as noted in the article. I'm a guitarist but I've never heard from that. However, cyanoacrylate is used by classic and flamenco guitarists to strengthen the nails, mostly in combination with silk. This practice is discussed widely on forums, and therefore a few "guitar nail kit" products are available on the market.

Also, "stringed-instrument players" could be replaced by "guitarists" if no other stringed-instrument players use it. But that will take a little investigation. (unsigned)

Some violinists use CA on fingertips for repair of cold-weather skin splits, shredded cuticles, damaged calluses, and so on. The smaller members of the violin family (violin, viola) do not usually lead to the kind of callus formation experienced by many guitarists. I doubt that very many fiddlers need to form a "protective finger cap" which would only get in the way of the sensitive touch it takes. __ 66.189.117.133 (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many Bass players coat their finger tips with Cyano - I know of both left and right hand fingers being covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.130.210 (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neosporin as a solvent?

Neosporin is a topical antibiotic ointment. If it works at all as a solvent or softener for hardened cyanoacrylate glue, then it probably is due to the ointment base, not the antibiotics, and petroleum jelly would work as well and be safer. Alternatively, "neosporin" might be a typo. Pending resolution of this potentially confusing point, which might be hazardous if someone allergic to neosporin tries to use it to remove the glue from their fingers, I have deleted the sentence saying neosporin is a widely available nontoxic solvent for cyanoacrylate glue.CharlesHBennett (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably don't need such a long justification for such a revert. Wikipedia is fairly strongly against making medical claims or recommendations without a source. (That being said, yeah, it's totally gonna be due to the ointment base (white petrolatum) and not the active ingredients.) -Verdatum (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

electical current ?

is super-glue conductor or insulator ? or something more complex like semiconductors ? i think it must be insulator but is there some scientifical data or technica reports ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.153.164 (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction with Cotton part needs to be removed

The cited source appears to be the singular reference containing such information. If this was legitimate, more of us would have known about it before reading it on Wiki. Chemically it makes absolutely zero sense for cyanoacrylate to react with the fibers of either cotton or wool, both of which are fairly inert. Finally, I was not able to reproduce any sort of reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.58.218 (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted earlier, there are a number of references to the exothermic reaction of cyanoacrylate with cotton and wool, probably the result of a rapid polymerisation reaction between the cyanoacrylate with the cellulose in wool/cotton:-

Many MSDS for cyanoacrylate only mention the reaction with cotton or wool in terms of avoiding contact. It is also not clear how much cyanoacrylate is needed to initiate an exothermic reaction, however it seems clear that the phenomenon can occur. Thozza (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to soak up super glue that had run from the nail to the skin with a cotton swab. The burn was so intense, I assumed I must have used the cotton swab previously and had gotten some other chemical on the qtip. After stinking my thumb under running cold water for 15 minutes I started researched what would interact with super glue (cyanoacrylate) and came across a you-tube video about reactions of combining cyanoacrylate and cotton wool. Another reference brought me to this page. I therefore can attest from a personal experience that trying to clean off cyanoacrylate with a cotton swab or cotton ball is NOT a good idea. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.217.17 (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My daughter spilled some fingernail glue (alpha cyanoacrylate) onto her denim jeans and now has 2nd degree burns from the reaction. The hospital had seen only 1 case of this, so they are going to make a journal of this. Therefore I can confirm that cyanoacrylate can burn. I hope to link to the journal in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.145.113 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kathryn Fristensky, personal experience, Kathryn.fristensky@gmail.com

waterproof?

Cyanoacrylate is certainly waterproof when it first bonds. But my understanding was that water (including water vapor) causes a long-term weakening of the bond. Is this true? The article says nothing. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. In fact, moisture causes the bonding.24.117.178.226 (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I previously read some cyanoacrylate data sheets that did not mention this decline in strength with moisture, but the data sheet for Loctite 401 (a fairly standard cyanoacrylate) does say the strength declines with time in water. Plus, cyanoacrylate packaging sometimes says it's not water proof. Piojo (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loctite is a brand name and so it would use additives,or delayers, that dilutes the product,extend its life for some reasons. Have those a say about influences in homogenizing the strength of adhesive bonds,i.e, under uv or sunlight,or moisture as Will noticed, John? asked master. Same question goes

to the couple of sections above in regard about the previous/70s quality of superglue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.163.193 (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High temperature

Please add information about how it reacts when exposed to high temperatures. What is the maximum temperature of a bond? What special kinds are there for higher temperatures?-96.237.79.6 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To get information like that, you would need to look up the spec sheet of a specific glue. Loctite has detailed specs for their glues, and 3M has pretty good spec sheets as well. Loctite is better for comparing glues side by side, as in this chart. Piojo (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

odor smell taste

"I worked for Loctite in the R&D and applications development groups. I developed many modifications and pioneered several unique medical apps using cyanoacrylates. Typically for use in the body the type of CA is called N Propyl Cyanacrylate ester. It is triple distilled for both purity and use. Once the cyanoacylate has polymerized it is considered inert. It is a thermoplastic so will melt when heated to typically above 180C. It is a pure monomer system when seen as a clear watery liquid..."

"sorry but CA's do not have any solvent in them.. they are what is called 100% solids adhesives... meaning they are 100% monomer... No solvents whatso ever... what you smell is the monomer evaporating at ambient conditions.. typically they volatilize during thr first minutes of application.. until the surface etc cures or polymerizes... then there is no smell left.. since all the liquid is polymerized to a solid."

How CA Polymerization occurs
"First you need to know that all CA's are stabilized.. with a weak acid to prevent the polymerization from starting..then when a CA is applied to a surface that is or has been in ambient conditions, meaning it has adsorbed moisture from the air. The cyanoacrylate undergoes anionic polymerization in the presence of the weak base, such as adsorbed water on the surface. More simply, when the adhesive contacts a surface, the water present on the surface neutralizes the acidic stabilizer in the adhesive, initiating the polymerization.. this is why you should always exhale a few breaths on the mating surfaces to be bonded with CA's just prior to bonding.. expecially in dry climates like AZ.. This initiation is different from the Free Radical initiation that anaerobic acrylic adhesives use...CA's and Anaerobic acrylic adhesives.. such Loctite thread bonds, retaining compounds, and adhesives are all very reactive adhesive systems and must be stabilized...but just barely... just enough that they stay stable under normal conditions.. then when that stability is pushed over the edge... voila'..polymerization starts and continues to completion..."

This quote is from forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=48426 -- an enlightening discussion with a Loctite technical expert.

The article should cover CA being pure monomer in tube, no solvent. Stabilized in tube with weak acid. Sets to thermoplastic, melts at 180C.

Please add information about the odor, smell and taste.-96.237.79.6 (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

glued skin no joke

This is serious stuff. Getting your skin glued to something is no joke at the time it happens. How many people seek medical attention a year? How many serious outcomes?-96.237.79.6 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this point should be included in the safety issues section. In Germany, they put warnings on super glue saying it can stick together fingers and eyelids. Georg Stillfried (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, acetone (found in nail polish remover) is a good solvent for cyanoacrylate. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DMF: Dimethyl Formamide as solvent.

n,n Dimethyl Formamide (DMF) should be listed as a solvent for cured CA adhesive. My understanding is that nitromethane is best, DMF is next-best, acetone is not as good. (But acetone is usually far more available than nitromethane or DMF.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=jwflfc_SEl4C&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=cyanoacrylate+dmf&source=bl&ots=dQSaNbhVJK&sig=GYD9VYU94xh3CgRSNRLwi3Dw97I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Um70T6TnLoLO9QSGrs3KBg&sqi=2&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cyanoacrylate%20dmf&f=false Jamesdbell8 (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs citation - acetone as a debonder

Citation 19 (Clinical experience with cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive) is used to claim that acetone softens cured cyanoacrylate. However, on page 244 of Clinical experience with cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive, it states: "In our experience, the use of acetone or neodymium: Yag Laser for the removal of the adhesive tissue [cyanoacrylate] did not offer any advantage."

This citation neither proves nor disproves acetone as a debonding agent, a better citation is needed for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.244.164.220 (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Cyanoacrylate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to keep your logs in the discussion page? Use History tab on article,or your own users Talk page, please. Keep the talk pages thin

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.163.193 (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article talk-page, and the comment is appropriately "for all editors" of the article, not personal to a certain editor. DMacks (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cyanoacrylate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is 1947 the in world war II

How can something synthesised in 1947 be in the "midst" of a world war II effort...... alternative reality. It might be the "result" of a world war II effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.240.235 (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an editing goof of transposed facts. Plse look now -- hop it satisfies. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyanoacrylate. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://nautarch.tamu.edu/crl/conservationmanual/File5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyanoacrylate. 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:

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) 18:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyanoacrylate. 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/20101127165158/http://www.climbingaction.com/Bouldering.html to http://www.climbingaction.com/Bouldering.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.weicon.com/en/produkte/1k-klebstoffe/contact-cyanacrylat.php

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) 21:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nothing regarding commercial brand name specifically?

"Super Glue" also an original brand name, but nothing regarding this in article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C54:4400:C76:0:F96D:721B:DEC7 (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is wiki required to fully mark a brand name, and brand name provider somehow at every innoculation? A local picture and innaninate one from the provider I find appropiate instead of let them submit my readings,yet please use your powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.163.193 (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BR-Eng, or US-Eng

"IP Editor has stated their part in the discussion is over"

To explain my (IP Editor) quote above, I was referring not to my participation in the entire string, but, only to my participation in the discussion in the last subsection of this article involving a dialog with user Chaheel Riens. Someone unilaterally decided to edit to declare the entire section over, but; that was not my intent. The discussion is not closed. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article had it's first major revisions using BR-Eng here back in 2003 and used the variety "vapour" and "ise", not "vapor" or "ize", and that's generally the policy for deciding whether an article that has no strong geographic ties should follow a particular type of national variety.

"Major"? I disagree. Rather, an editor who typically uses British English simply made a small change to the article in question. That does not indicate in any way that the article was, or should be seen as having been composed using British English, which let's not forget is your contention. And due to the origin and invention location of this product, generally (to use that word again), WP would tie the article strongly to the United States and therefore, also generally, to the use of American English. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The location of invention doesn't really tie a globally applied and used product - if superglue were only to be used in the US, it would be a different matter - but it isn't. Everybody uses the compound all across the world. If you can put forward a cogent argument as to why Engvar should be changed, I'm all up for that, but you need to provide the reasoning - and country of invention doesn't cut it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. You and I both know it "cuts it" and then some. The origin location of an invention indeed has and still largely continues to determine the version of English used in a WP article; for example, generally an article about cricket bats would be written using British English, while an article about baseball bats would be written in American English. Do we really need to split hairs on this? My contention has everything to do with origin of product and nothing to do with where or how often where in the world the invention is used, an assertion of yours here which appears to be something of a red herring I'm afraid. (Sorry.) 71.112.240.132 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the BR-Eng tag was only added on 12/11, but the DMY preference - which states that dates should follow the British dd-mm-yy format, not the American mm-dd-yy format has been in place since November 2020 - as indeed has the BR-eng language. The BR-Eng tag was added to make it clearer that the article is in Br-English.

That would be useful to your POV if it were true, but as it isn't, your assertion on that point is incorrect. The DMY date format has never been limited to just British English usage, either on WP, or anywhere else. Although American usage of MDY is used as a common format (also still used in Britain, but, far less often), DMY is acknowledged in the US as a more widely used universal format, endorsed by UN convention, especially in academic/scientific/military publications, so your claim that DMY indicates only to British English in this article is simply incorrect. It does not indicate anything of the sort. I had meant to point that out earlier and do appreciate your bringing it up here. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also note that it is not me who is proposing the change, as stated in your edit summary of "...You put YOUR proposal to discussion" - but you made the initial change from BR-Eng to US-Eng in these edits here 1 and 2 - which were subsequently reverted. And your repeated attempts to change this have again been reverted. You are the one who needs to join in the discussion here on the talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here we are. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Check out Tire - which according to the article was invented by a Scotsman called Robert William Thomson. That would class it as BR-Eng, surely? Although his invention was never picked up, so maybe we should discount that. Instead, the first "real" tire was popularised by Dunlop - an Irish company. To assume that the country of invention dictates the terms used is a fallacy, and not the case. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have done well to cite one of the rare exceptions to "product origin=>regional English language type follows". While the sort of thing you are pointing out here does exist, IMO, it is so rare as to be insignificant to the whole. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, you are still the one proposing the change, and whilst yes - "here we are" the original version of the article should be in place while we discuss. You put forward some good points, but they are somewhat negated by your refusal to follow the general etiquette expected from editors on the project, which is odd, because your posts here show a great deal of understanding of how things generally operate in every other respect. If you feel so confident that your pov will prevail, why not simply wait until others join in to give their opinion as well?

Whilst DMY preference is not conclusive - let's not forget the whole point we are here is because you changed text from BR-Eng to US-Eng. That change was challenged - and indeed is still challenged - and needs to be resolved. Simply attempting to bully others by constantly re-inserting your change over another reversion to the last stable version is not helpful. If you're so confident, just wait for others to support your proposal.

Note that we are both at 3RR - any further changes will result in the bright line being crossed. Just because you did not use undo to make changes does not mean they're not reversions. I'm quite happy to discuss your reasoning, but you've got to stop forcing your version prior to agreement. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens actually had the nerve to write the following: " ...you've got to stop forcing your version prior to agreement." As was the case when you edited this article, just two days ago, without any consensus in Talk, to insist that this article should be locked into using only British English with the weakest of arguments as explanation, that, because a year ago, someone edited the article to lock in DMY date format and you indicated (incorrectly) that DMY date format was exclusively of British usage and somehow, that meant that the article was always intended to be written in British English. Absurd and hypocritical. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8980:5A4F:99E:2713 has just tagged this article as British English, a tag that did not exist just three days ago, which had the appearance of being added to bolster the claims of an editor engaged in disagreement with another on the subject. In the request that the article remain as is until consensus is reached, it is requested that this tag be removed. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article at this pagename does appear to have been most-recently created in uniform BR-ENG[1] as noted at the top of this thread, and then seems to have remained that way for the 18 years since then. So MOS:RETAIN says we default to keeping it that way unless there's some WP:CONSENSUS for a topic-based reason to change it. DMacks (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean here. The terms "recently created" and "remained that way for 18 years" seem to conflict. How can an article that was recently created remain in any form for 18 years, as that time period, by definition, would not be recent? 71.112.240.132 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was me that re-added the BrEng tag, and I’ve just done so again. As others are saying, it’s held British spelling since 2003 and that’s the long-standing WP:STATUSQUO that needs to be retained unless there is consensus to change. The idea that the country of invention door a global product determines the language is a misnomer. Tarmacadam, tank and fax are another examples of British innovations with articles that use US spelling. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8980:5A4F:99E:2713 (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, in all fairness, it's not "others"; it's one single other. Second, the article was created in 2001 and remained written as AmEng for at least two years after that. Third, one could argue that the article has remained American in appearance and tone to this day, save for a few, two or three actually, BrEng-spelled words. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it was actually a long-standing status quo, then why did the BrEng tag appear to have gone away? After all, you wouldn't have needed to re-add it, if it hadn't been changed in the first place. Perhaps another editor disagreed with the idea that there even exists a status quo concerning the English language variant of this article and that there is no reason for this article to be tagged as such. This appears to have happened and it appears that you missed that edit and only recently reacquainted yourself with the subject because of my recent edit of the last few days. Further, I would agree with that editor's POV, because there is no reason whatsoever to tag this article with BrEng, simply because an editor chose to spell a few words with the British English variant. Even if it did happen in 2003, the article dates back to 2001. Using your logic, I can (and do) claim the article should be tagged with AmEng, as it was written that way from the start. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. May I respectfully submit that you are making this entirely too easy for the the following reasons ... First, this discussion concerns a broader perspective than just that of inventions. It involves all sorts of subjects and I maintain that the overriding trend on WP is to write English language articles in the language variant of the subject's origin country. You, 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8980:5A4F:99E:2713, for instance, are currently involved in an edit war issue on the WP article for the James Bond series film No Time To Die. When one accesses the edit page for that article, one sees that this article is emblazoned loudly with the UK flag, along with the strong admonishment that "this article is written in British English". I, as would any reasonable person, would expect that very thing and would respect it. However, although the successful James Bond franchise originated in the UK, it has been entertaining people all over the world for decades, so much so that Agent 007 has ingrained himself in the civilized world's collective psyche as the prototype government spy, regardless of country of origin. Genuine issue; accept no substitute. Yet, his article is tagged prominently with BrEng. Now consider, in a very similar fashion, that the very American invention of cyanoacrylate has served the worldwide adhesion market as *the* light-duty, single component, quick-set, go-to adhesive for decades, yet you want me to accept your insistence that its WP article should be tagged as British English, furthermore, simply because somebody added a few BrEng-spelled words to its content? This glaring inconsistency is beyond ludicrous and is preposterous on its face. Any fine line that you might claim I am missing simply does not exist. And this is but one example. Other instances of what I am pointing out here are legion on WP. If you insist, I can go on and on and on concerning this subject.

Second, all of the articles you've employed above Tarmacadam, tank, fax and tire in an effort to support your argument, appear to have failed you, because, although, they do indeed include American English spelling, they all also include British English spelling and ***NONE of them*** are tagged as requiring American English spelling, yet you incredulously insist that the WP Cyanoacrylate article, which concerns an American invention, be tagged as BrEng. The double standard here cannot continue in good faith. Fairness requires that this dilemma be rectified by removing the BrEng tag from the Cyanoacrylate article. Please reconsider your position concerning this matter. Thank you. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there UK spelling in Tire? I just checked it, intending to remove them as that article is well established for US-Eng, but I can't find any examples. There are a few instances of "tyre", but these are all in the context of quotes or proper nouns - Dunlop Tyres, European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, etc.

And finally, Tire is tagged as using US-Eng, and has been since July 2020. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The words that use British English spelling in Tire that I was able to locate were as follows: 'Travelled', 'Behaviour' and a couple of WP links that use the word 'tyred' (which should be edited to read 'tired'). 71.112.240.132 (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is, but it appears the reason for the AmEng tag may concern explanations given in the Etymology and Spelling section of the article, where it is shown that the spelling, 'tire', was widely used in the UK up to a point in time and was considered to be the classic British spelling in that same period, with the spelling of 'tyre' spurned in both Encyclopedia Britannica and Fowler's Guide. I can only guess that a convergence was recognized in WP between the early British etymology ('tire') and the American spelling ('tire'), so the article's default spelling was set to 'tire', which just happens to be current American convention. If so, this would be a very different reason from the reason why Cyanoacrylate may have been set to BrEng and would not appear to support your line of reasoning on that matter. Furthermore, there are still the other WP articles you had mentioned about British inventions, Tarmacadam, tank and fax, that are not tagged as being either BrEng or AmEng and contain words of both American English and British English spellings. The lack of such national variant language tagging in these examples alone can be held up as reasons why the British English tag can and should be removed from Cyanoacrylate. Please confirm and edit Cyanoacrylate to reflect this. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not mentioned Tarmacadam, tank and fax. Make sure you're directing comments at the correct editor please, otherwise people may think you're not paying attention. Your reasoning for the US-Eng tag being applied is massive over-thinking of the rationale. The tag is there so people know that is has been agreed that American English is to be used in the article, not just down to etymology. It also still avoids the point that you claimed the article wasn't tagged - when it clearly was, and has been for over 12 months. You do not have confirmation, and nor will I edit the article to affirm this - not least because it has been locked so that only mop-holders can edit it.

I've removed "behaviour" and replaced it with the correct "behavior" from Tire, also "travelled" -> "traveled". The article contains no mention of "tired" or "tyred", so probably best you fix those yourself, as I can't see them, even when checking the article source. You're not referring in some way to Formula One tyres are you? That's the correct article title, so a WL to "tyre" in this instance is correct. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mix-up occurred when I was having a lengthy conversation with 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8980:5A4F:99E:2713 and you responded to that conversation, so yes; things got switched around for a moment.

The point about how Tire was tagged wasn't avoided in my response. Scroll up; I indicated my understanding that it was tagged as you had indicated, with a sentence that began with "Indeed it is".

I wasn't referring to Formula One tyres. The form "tyred" is on Tires. I won't perform the edit since modern pneumatic tire design appears to be of British origin and for that reason believe that the article should be written in British English. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the see also entries of

These are article titles so obviously should not be changed to tire, and as such were not included when I searched the article for inaccurate usage. It's not very helpful when you won't actually give examples of usage - especially when they would presumably help your own arguments for change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, metro and trams. Thought since they appeared in an American English-written article, the link titles (not the article titles, obviously) may also have been required to be changed as follows, for the sake of uniformity/consistency: e.g., ...tyred...|...tired... . And to your contention that I don't offer examples, I did. Remember when I directed you to behaviour and travelled? If you sensed any reluctance at this point, past the point of having previously pointed out the examples in Tire, again; it's my belief that modern pneumatic tire design is a British invention and that the article should have be written in British English. Had I known you were going to edit behaviour and travelled to their American forms, I wouldn't have been so forthcoming in offering them earlier.

As to other things to consider, you could start with the examples that another editor gave earlier; I believe they were fax, tarmacadam and tank, as British inventions/modern developments that use American spelling. However, it was also pointed out that none of the three of those articles are tagged with the requirement that they are written in either form of English, as it should perhaps follow with Cyanoacrylate. If one insists Cyanoacrylate shouldn't be written in American English, or tagged as such, it probably doesn't need to, or shouldn't be, tagged with British English either, simply because it contains two British-spelled words. Please consider the following: the article began in 2001, small in comparison to current content and un-tagged per language variant type. In 2003, edits were made that added two words that were spelled in the British manner and someone felt it necessary to tag it as British spelling then, when the article was still small in content, predictably with many more content-adding edits to follow. That tagging appears now to have been premature and a clear overreach, in spite of what is currently permissible within WP, for the following reasons. One would have also known then (2003), that, since cyanoacrylate is an American-invented product created by native-born and -educated individuals within a large American company, the technical data available would be written in American English. One would also know that this would be a great deal of data. Knowing then that a large portion of the article would be then fleshed out in the future with these sources of American English-based data, it doesn't appear fair, much less sensible, to expect that all that data, whether it is quoted directly, or, used as reference material for original content published by an American English-speaking editor, be overhauled to British English in order to be published in Cyanoacrylate, simply because someone decided in 2003 to apply the BrEng tag. As is the case with tank, tarmacadam and fax, where, at some point in their existence, they were first edited with either BrEng or AmEng yet remained un-tagged, I propose that Cyanoacrylate has the BrEng tag removed, with all forms of English coexisting. That or, alternatively perhaps, those three examples given above need researched to see where in time they were first edited and tag them with the language used in the first edit. This is a proposal seeking consistency. If, as you might be justified in suspecting, you are thinking that I will use the action of dropping the BrEng tag as justification for pushing American English spelling in Cyanoacrylate, be assured that I will not do that, for the reason that any such changes to this article would be best first proposed in Talk, as is being done now. I also realize that the encouragement to Be Bold doesn't preclude reversions and that going to 3RR is counterproductive to the project. So, if you can, I can also live with [[Cyanoacrylate}} existing as un-tagged per language form, as is the case with the examples above, with any form of English acceptable within. Could this be considered to be a fair compromise? 71.112.240.132 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because articles should not mix varieties, and that is the crux of the issue. This article uses BR-Eng - the tag is only to make that obvious.

It's also very important to point out that in many cases the only reason an article doesn't have a BR/US-Eng tag is because it hasn't been added yet. That doesn't mean one should not be added, or that there is no preferred variety.

I'm finally very concerned at your comments of "[h]ad I known you were going to edit behaviour and travelled to their American forms, I wouldn't have been so forthcoming in offering them earlier" - that is effectively a declaration that you have no intention of honouring any kind of BR-Eng or WP-Eng variety on a page if they don't meet your personal views, and you intend to make it difficult for those who are adhering to the MOS in question - WP:ARTCON to be precise which states that consistency should be maintained in an article, regardless of the variety. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "effectively a declaration" of anything you've suggested. You either didn't read, or, chose to ignore the acknowledgement that 'Be Bold' edits can lead to reversion which, if contested, should be taken to Talk, avoiding 3RR/edit warring. Given the your view of the rules, it became clear that no example I presented would change your mind; you appeared to be more interested in simply editing the examples given. The reluctance you noted was just a choice to not participate in that process in the present.

You also avoided the question I raised of whether or not the editor was using best practice principles in deciding to use British-spelled words in the 2003 edit, which had lead to the language tag in question.

Yes, I understand retain and status quo but; I also believe poor decisions from the past can and should be reversed. I am questioning the wisdom of using British-spelled words in this article in the first place. There is more to my argument than simply noting the American origin of cyanoacrylate as a reason to remove/reverse the BrEng tag. Again, one would have known in 2003, that, since cyanoacrylate is an American-invented product created by native-born and -educated individuals within a large American company, the technical data available would be written in American English. One would also know that this would be a great deal of data. Knowing then that a large portion of the article would be then fleshed out in the future with these sources of American English-based data, it doesn't appear fair, much less sensible, to expect that all that data, whether it is quoted directly, or, used as reference material for original interpreted content published by an editor, be overhauled to British English just in order to be published in the WP Cyanoacrylate article. This is all because of just two or three British-spelled words added in 2003. For these reasons, the article should have been first edited using American English and the decision not to do so should be reconsidered and reversed.

Back to the cricket bat example; if I personally were to make the first edit to a WP article about cricket bats, which would determine its language variant tag, I would make the decision to use British English because the vast majority of data available to further such an article's content would have been written in British English. Making the first edit in British English would then make for easier and more accurate future edits. So it is for cyanoacrylate. The decision to first edit in British English was short-sighted at best and stands as a prime example of the careless edit practice currently permitted in WP. These practices should be able to be questioned and reversed by a process prescribed by WP. To your knowledge, does such a process exist? 71.112.240.132 (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're not being sarcastic, and taking the comment at face value - yes, such a process does exist. Change can be made by discussion and gaining a consensus. However, as others may not share your view on what you see as careless edit practices, you may not get consensus, and change does not happen. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your uncertainty, as the question wasn't well stated. I was attempting to ask whether or not there exists a process to advance policy change after Talk is completed. I believe I may have found it in the interim.

However, more importantly to the point of this discussion, other than indicating that it is my belief, you still appear to be avoiding the reasoning behind the question I raised of whether or not the editor was using best practice principles in deciding to use British-spelled words in the 2003 edit, which had lead to the language tag in question.

Again, I understand retain and status quo but; I also believe poor decisions from the past can and should be reversed. I am questioning the wisdom of using British-spelled words in cyanoacrylate in the first edit and the requirement to do so thereafter. There is more to my argument than simply noting the American origin of cyanoacrylate as a reason to remove/reverse the BrEng tag. Again, one would have known in 2003, that, since cyanoacrylate is an American-invented product created by native-born and -educated individuals within a large American company, the technical data available would be written in American English. One would also know that this would be a great deal of data. Knowing then that a large portion of the article would be then fleshed out in the future with these sources of American English-based data, it doesn't appear fair, much less sensible, to expect that all that data, whether it is quoted directly, or, used as reference material for original interpreted content published by an editor, be overhauled to British English just in order to be published in the WP Cyanoacrylate article. This is all because of just two or three British-spelled words added in 2003. For these reasons, the article should have been first edited using American English and the decision not to do so should be reconsidered and reversed.

Back to the cricket bat example; if I personally were to make the first edit to a WP article about cricket bats, which would determine its language variant tag, I would make the decision to use British English because the vast majority of data available to further such an article's content would have been written in British English. Making the first edit in British English would then make for easier and more accurate future edits. So it is for cyanoacrylate. The decision to first edit that article in British English was short-sighted and stands as a prime example of the careless edit practice currently permitted in WP.

The point is, simply because an editor is currently permitted to tag the article in any variant of English in the first edit doesn't mean it is the best choice to tag said article with the language variant in which the editor speaks. To make such a decision (and the the current policy that supports it) can be seen as careless editing practice, relative to the English language variant commonly used in the available source data, which is predictably written in the language of the inventor, which may be different from that of the first editor. Ease of future editing and the question of future content quality were mentioned to that end. The rules should be changed to recognize that other considerations, as mentioned above, should be taken into account before the English language variant tagging decision can be finalized. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bond is flagged to use British English because the main production company is British. That's the determining factor for film articles, nothing else. If it was just a US production company and there was no British production company involved, it would be written in American English. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:21B2:E400:1175:ABD (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that explanation. Are you aware of any WP regulation(s) supporting this convention and if so, would you kindly point me in the right direction? 71.112.240.132 (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long-standing consensus. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9D12:F0BE:4B90:D93 (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, if this consensus is long-standing and obviously important, why hasn't it been codified? Second, it seems very odd that this consensus should only apply to film articles; because, after all, a widely-distributed commercial film is nothing more than a commodity, created to be sold in order to generate revenue. It's the same with cyanoacrylate; the inventors and (using your words to further the analogy) "production companies" were American; the product was sold throughout the United States and eventually was licensed to be manufactured overseas. There is nothing special about commercial film and their production companies - they simply produce a product to be sold. For the sake of consistency, it can't be both ways. Either all articles about products, prominent persons, etc. should be written in the form of English tied to origins/initial producers (as most articles already seem to be anyhow, approaching a consensus), or, film articles should be able to be written in any form of English, regardless of the address of the production company. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhere in the talk archives of the Film project, if you really want to keep pushing on that button. It's not just about film articles, it's based on the idea of "strong national ties" to a topic. Cyanoacrylate does not have such strong national ties, whereas films do - which is why we have articles such as Cinema of the United Kingdom, Cinema of the United States, Cinema of France, etc. There are no such ties that create the need to have Glues of the United States or similar, so it's a false analogy to try and compare the two. Cyanoacrylate is an invention that has gone global, so much like the fax machine, tarmacadam and tyre/tire, the language won't necessarily reflect the country that invented them - and that's entirely OK. Most editors here are not so hung up on changing the spelling to suit their own petty nationalistic feelings on something - they are more concerned with reflecting the article's contents are correct and adequately sourced. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:FDB2:77A7:2066:EEC2 (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, again, it isn't codified. There exists only the possibility of a consensus amongst a fluid group of editors who happened to be around during that point in the discussion. And the application of the alleged consensus is to be driven only (at least here) by the word of an anonymous editor who makes this informative claim, however weak this standard may appear for such an important project. Yes, it can be researched in the archives, but; the better option might be to attempt to codify it for wider and more immediate access, only after a wider discussion would be opened in order to gather opinions from those versed in many other industries. So, if not all films have a strong national tie to the place where they were made, then the whole of film cannot get a pass on this and other possibilities should be considered.

So the above editor's (User 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:21B2:E400:1175:ABD) claim that the question of what English regional variant is used is determined by the origin of the film's production company may be incorrect. However, it seems that so many articles *are* determined by this very thing, despite the insistence from a few editors who spoke up here, that such articles should be tagged with a regional variant spelling tag because of the sudden inclusion of two or three words spelled in that regional variant, in a so-called "first major edit". And it doesn't always come down to a strong national tie, or, lack of same.

I would disagree with your broad analysis about perceived differences in the existence of strong national ties between films and products such as adhesives. First, your insistence that because films are categorized on WP by national origin implies a "strong national tie" doesn't necessarily stand. According to recorded WP explanations, film titles are included in these articles, e.g., Cinema of Canada, simply because of the location where the films were made. Further, one can make a film anywhere about any subject, but; this will not necessarily connect that film to any nation. Another thing to consider is because such things may be categorized by one factor, in this case strong national ties, it doesn't eliminate the possibility of other possible factors being applied in the process, such as where the item was invented, where it was first used, how that item is perceived by the public in the place where it was first used, etc.

While some editors may be motivated by nationalism when it comes to connecting English-variant spellings with product origins, that certainly isn't mine. As I've written elsewhere on WP concerning my motivation per this subject, such activity on my part is merely an attempt at pointing out and reconciling inconsistencies that exist on WP; that's it. In addition to my British-to-US-English edits in Cyanoacrylate, I've also changed US English to British English, US English to Canadian English and all combinations of the above, in other articles, for varying reasons. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much wrong in all you’ve written it’s too difficult to to know where to begin. Firstly, please do not go around changing variants of English, as you proudly claim you’ve done. WP:RETAIN is something set in stone a long time ago because of the disruption caused by people needlessly changing variants when they don’t know what they’re doing. It’s clear that this is a case that you don’t know what you’re doing.

In terms of films, the choice of English isn’t because of “where the films were made”. I am not an expert in where policies are codified, so please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and ask them about the language question. You will be told that I am right on the point, but hopefully someone will point you towards the guidance. You are wrong to say it’s not codified just because it’s based on consensus. A consensus process is a codifying process and it’s what a great deal of WP is based on.

This is all drifting further from the point, however, as adhesive does not equal film. The location of where something is invented is not taken as the determining factor in the choice of English, and that’s key here. Your attempts to change this are not backed up by any guidelines or policies or the MOS. WP:RETAIN is. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9CAB:1373:3FCE:602D (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

71.112.240.132, unless you have some evidence or rationale (in which case please make a case over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations) please remove your oblique sock-puppet accusation over at the EW noticeboard, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens, I think you mean Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, rather than Sockpuppet investigations, unless I'm missing something? Cheers - 81.158.242.155 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I follow your thinking as that's where the accusation was made, but if the IP thinks that a specific editor is indulging in sock-puppetry to further their goals then they should bring it up on the SPI noticeboard, not bandy it about as a means of lessening the worth of their edits or integrity. if they don't think they have good enough reason to do that, then they should certainly not make such comments, even in a throwaway fashion.

I've already asked them to redact or offer proof up on the AN/EW, but they've failed to respond. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is nothing to redact or prove. I haven't made an accusation against anyone; I made a comment based upon certain observations. You do know the difference I trust. If so, be careful of your reactions, otherwise, people may think you're not paying attention.

2. "...failed to respond..."?? Nonsense. As of the timing of your latest post above (16:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)), you had made your request only two hours prior (14:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)), a time period much shorter than most other elapsed times between responses in this string.

3. There is a lot of content to be considered here; individuals to answer. With different schedules, likely large time zone spans and lives outside of WP, some patience may be in order. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, "the identity of the anonymous editor may not be that hard to guess". What exactly did you mean by that? If you explain why that is not an accusation, we can move on.
Yeah, no. Something about paying attention? The request to redact was made here @ 1301h GMT 16/11/21 with an edit summary of "that looks like a sock-puppet accusation to me". That's a gap of over 24 hours - during which time you've been active on the project, regardless of time differences. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already did.

Where? Please do so again, so that it makes sense. Your comment was that "the identity of the anonymous editor may not be that hard to guess"? Who do you think it might be? If it wasn't an accusation of sock-puppetry - what was the point of it?

Cute. The project is on Talk, not AN/EW. Haven't been there since my last edit, no reason to do so. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the accusation - and your own contributions - are also on AN/EW. Now, I accept that this topic of conversation is primarily about the usage of BR-Eng, or US-Eng in an article, but I also do think that you should clarify this particular sub-issue. Accusation of sock-puppetry is a serious matter. Failure to do so is essentially WP:IDHT. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in question was not an accusation, despite your best efforts to make it appear so. You've made your concern clear and I've responded, earlier in the string. There's been no failure on my part to answer your question. However, you are correct about one thing; this conversation is off-topic. My part in this discussion is over 71.112.240.132 (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was an accusation, despite your best efforts to make it appear not so. Nor is it truly off-topic as the accusations are based around edits to this article and particular topic. However, as you've recused yourself, we can now close this whole affair. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not recuse myself, as there is no need to do so. You've misunderstood, although one can begin to understand why one might, as this subsection is at the very end of the section "BR-Eng, or US-Eng" of the Talk page. However, my comment above was intended only to let you know that I am done commenting on this subsection alone, not the entire "BR-Eng, or US-Eng" section of this Talk page. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is turning into a discussion about policy interpretation, not content based on policy interpretaion. I think it would be better continued elsewhere, rather than the article it is being applied to. With regard to the specific issue, the editor requesting use of US-Eng has failed to convince other editors that this is a good idea, and as such there has been no consensus to change or make US-Eng unilateral across the article. Therefore based on the original edits, the DMY tags and BR-Eng usage, it seems logical that this continues, and to prevent this sort of thing happening, consolidation by usage of the BR-Eng template. If the IP editor successfully makes a change to policy surrounding Engvar, then we can revisit this. Nobody is willing to budge ergo there is no change to be made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Kathryn Fristensky, personal experience, Kathryn.fristensky@gmail.com

[1]