Talk:Fibre-reinforced plastic

Scope

This article seems to be mainly about fiber-reinforced plastic used in structures. I'm more looking for information (or adding information) about fiber (and other fillers such as minerals, lubricants, etc.) filled plastics used in injection molding processes. Should that be added here or should a new article be created? Are they differentiated because this is "reinforced" plastic and injection molded plastics are "filled"? Thanks for the help! Wizard191 (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Title

The term "plastic" is vague and seems misleading in this context. Wouldn't the title "Fiber Reinforced Polymer" be more appropriate. "Plastic" has a flexible connotation. Even though the resins used are "plastic" during the manufacturing process, they are rigid structures when complete. The references in this article are mostly about rigid composite structures. Also, can we remove the hyphen "-" in the title? Here in the US, we get the FRP from separate words; Fiber Reinforced Plastic (and it looks better in the title to have caps.). (even if the Brits want to keep the "fibre" spelling) SunKider (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)m

I agree with both Wizard191 and SunKinder. As written, this article should mention nylon, which is incredibly common in producing high performance consumer products (with 30% glass reinforcement). Piojo (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agree on title change from Fibre Reinforced Polymer from Fibre-Reinforced Plastic. Can we get a short vote or even some comments on this? Does "plastic" (not a very well-defined word) offer any advantages here? Are there any fiber reinforced "plastics" that are NOT polymers? SBHarris 00:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Fibre-reinforced polymer Andy Dingley (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please create an article about fiberglass

There is plenty to describe about fiberglass without all the uses. Provide links to the many uses described in separate articles. This false article contains misleading information by virtue of the context. Fiberglass polymer resin enthusiest / sales people coming up when one searches for fiberglass. Most fiberglass manufactures is used for insulation anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottprovost (talk • contribs) 12:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Does the British spelling of fiber as fibre matter? The article has both spellings.Frmorrison (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed it so that that its consistent. Wizard191 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The merge has been opposed as there is no consensus for this merge. (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merge proposal

I have proposed merging the article Fiberglass into the article Fibre-reinforced plastic, because they seem to be covering essentially the same material and technologies. The "Fiberglass" article seems to be more fully-developed and active, but "Fibre-reinforced plastic" is a more-inclusive and descriptive title. Although the minor issue of WP:ENGVAR will need to be resolved, is there any good reason to maintain two overlapping article forks covering the same fiber-reinforced plastic technology? Reify-tech (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Although I very much like it in principle, I think if you were going to do that you'd have to merge in carbon fiber reinforced polymer too, but the article would be too big.GliderMaven (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Of course it would be too big if you merged in subarticles. This is a generic article about fiber-reinforced polymers/plastics (I do support the name change from "plastic," with a redirect from FR plastic). Carbon and glass are just two kinds of fibres, with two others given in the lead and many others possible and in use. And there are hundreds of polymers. This is like proposing a merge of the rat and mouse articles into the rodent one! Per WP:SS that is not the way we want to move on Wikipedia. We go from articles on general classes to more specific classes, etc., leaving behind summaries at every level. SBHarris 21:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as Sbharris says, " a gigantic subject and class" Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Fibre-reinforced polymers has 25 members at present. How many are you suggesting to merge into one article? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment there's also Fiber-reinforced composite; a merge with that might be better plan.GliderMaven (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

As fibre-reinforced composites are, by definition, an even larger group than fibre-reinforced polymers, then this is an even worse idea than the first one. Andy Dingley (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

By that faulty logic we could never have an article on the universe because the universe is far larger! It's not the size of the subject it's how much there is to write about it.GliderMaven (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You think that either fibreglass or fibre-reinforced polymer are too small topics to stand? Good luck with that one. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha you're neither hilarious nor accurate. Fiber-reinforced composite is essentially the same topic and has little material and is subject to the same physical equations. GliderMaven (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move to Fiber-reinforced plastic?

I think this article should be titled Fiber-reinforced plastic and not Fibre-reinforced plastic because: (1) the material was invented in the US, (2) for consistency with our other articles, e.g., Carbon fiber reinforced polymer, Fiberglass, Long-fiber-reinforced thermoplastic, and (3) search results (inc. Google Ngrams) suggest "fiber" is more common than "fibre". All this suggests to me the article should use US and not UK WP:ENGVAR, including in the title. Would anyone object to a bold move? – Levivich 02:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Fibre reinforced plastic was invented in Belgium, that's what Bakelite was. Consistency with other articles isn't a major consideration, the primary consideration is internal consistency within an article, and that you not swap between WP:ENGVARs. GliderMaven (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Bakelite was invented in New York by Leo Baekeland, a Belgian-American. Note our article, Bakelite, uses "fiber", not "fibre". – Levivich 02:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per consensus. (non-admin closure) comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Fibre-reinforced plastic → Fiber-reinforced plastic – For consistency with other articles, which use "Fiber" rather than "Fibre", e.g. Fiber-reinforced concrete, Fiber-reinforced composite, Carbon fiber reinforced polymer, Fiberglass, Long-fiber-reinforced thermoplastic, Fiber-optic cable, Fiber-optic communication, etc. Fiber-reinforced plastic was invented in the US, so it makes sense to use the US spelling. Google scholar, books, and Ngrams search results suggest "Fiber-reinforced plastic" is more common than "Fibre-reinforced plastic". – Levivich 01:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is an WP:ENGVAR issue. It would be really weird to have the article name different than the article. Wikipedia long ago decided that you don't arbitrarily change spelling like this. The English spelling has precedence. GliderMaven (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, if the article were moved, I'd change all the "Fibre" to "Fiber" in the article text to match the title. – Levivich 02:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I'm opposed, see WP:ENGVAR. GliderMaven (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This is MOS:TIES v. MOS:RETAIN, and I say WP:TITLECON breaks the tie in favor of using "fiber", to match all other articles. The stuff was made in the US; there's no reason to use UK spelling. – Levivich 02:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This isn't exactly on the national flag of the United States, sorry, I call bullshit. GliderMaven (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR. The relevant policy is not ENGVAR, but TITLEVAR. I quote 'American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and used in article titles (such as color gel and colour state)'. Consistency is not a policy consideration when it comes to varieties of English in article titles. RGloucester — ☎ 09:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per RGloucester. See also WP:TITLECON: We therefore do not change titles so that all consistently use one regional spelling or wording Colin M (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. The stuff is used all over the world; it's not exclusively American, no matter where it was invented. If we were going to concentrate on where things were invented, doubtless a lot of articles with American spellings would have to change to British ones far more than the other way round! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.